Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(112,102 posts)
Sun Apr 22, 2018, 04:35 AM Apr 2018

Ghost Ship defendant denied release, despite arguments he's not a threat

OAKLAND — One of the Ghost Ship defendants was denied release from bail on Friday by a judge, despite his attorney’s arguments that he was not a danger to society.

Both Derick Almena, 48, along with Max Harris, 28, are former warehouse tenants each charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of 36 people who perished in the deadly fire the night of Dec 2, 2016, at the East Oakland arts collective known as the Ghost Ship.

Almena’s attorney Tony Serra argued before Alameda County Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy on Friday morning that he should be granted release with non-monetary alternatives, in light of a recent First District Court of Appeal decision. That decision, ordered judge’s throughout the state to reevaluate bail based on the defendant’s ability to pay, and to consider alternatives to money bail.

In his arguments, Serra said that his client was poor and could not afford bail. He also said Almena was not a threat to society and would not flee. Before being charged in this case last year, Almena did not flee and was not “hiding in the woods” but moved with his family to Lake County, Serra said.

Read more: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/04/20/ghost-ship-defendant-denied-release-despite-arguments-hes-not-a-threat/

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ghost Ship defendant denied release, despite arguments he's not a threat (Original Post) TexasTowelie Apr 2018 OP
A mere promise to appear does not guarantee appearance. JayhawkSD Apr 2018 #1
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
1. A mere promise to appear does not guarantee appearance.
Sun Apr 22, 2018, 09:25 AM
Apr 2018
“Do you think he’s going to leave his wife and children?” Maybe not, but her certainly might flee with his wife and children. That is not even a rare act for people who break the law.

Ankle bracelet? Oh please. That is not even close to being sufficient from 100 miles away. The judge did the proper thing.
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»California»Ghost Ship defendant deni...