Judge denies Cain Velasquez bail in attempted murder case: 'Risk is too great'
Former UFC heavyweight champion Cain Velasquez was denied bail Monday during his arraignment at the Santa Clara County Hall of Justice in San Jose, Calif.
After approximately 25 minutes of cases being made by both sides, Judge Shelyna Brown denied Velasquez bail. He will remain held at the Santa Clara County main jail after Judge Brown called his alleged actions “reckless” and stated “the risk is too great” to release him. Velasquez is due back in court April 12.
Velasquez, 39, was arrested Feb. 28 and charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting a man while targeting another man, 43-year-old Harry Goularte, accused of molesting a family member possibly “100 times.” Velasquez allegedly pursued their truck and rammed his own truck into the side of their before firing several shots, one of which struck Goularte’s stepfather in the arm.
“This case involves allegations of extreme recklessness to human life,” Judge Brown said, concluding a full statement that can be read at the bottom of this story. “Ramming a vehicle in the middle of the day where our citizens are out driving, going about their business, and shooting out of a car at other individuals, which is reckless by any standard. Anyone could’ve been injured. Anyone could’ve been killed. When this court looks at Article 1, Section 12, it is this level of risk that the court must take into consideration. With that said, this court is making a ruling that the risk is too great. There will be no bail set at this time.”
Prior to her ruling, Judge Brown heard arguments from both Velasquez’s attorney, Mark Geragos, as well as Aaron French from the district attorney’s office in a packed courthouse full of Velasquez supporters. At one point, the judge issued a warning about an outburst from someone in attendance, after which there were no further issues
Geragos, who has Michael Jackson, Chris Brown, Winona Ryder, and Colin Kaepernick among a long list of past celebrity clients, mentioned Goularte when making his case for Velasquez to be allowed a high bail. However, Judge Brown indicated she thought Goularte’s legal standing is irrelevant as she is not overseeing that case.
“Mr. Geragos, this court is not juxtaposing one case against another,” Brown said. “That is not my job. My job is to deal with the case that is before the court. The Velasquez case is before this court. … This court is not at liberty to look at other cases in the media or the case of Goularte.”
After Geragos spoke, French made the prosecution’s case, which focused on the perceived premeditation of Velasquez’s alleged actions. He also read a letter from Goularte’s mother, Patricia, who was allegedly in the car as Velasquez shot at the vehicle. Patricia Goularte described a plethora of troubling emotions in the days since the alleged incident occurred.
Following the decision, Geragos spoke to reporters outside the courthouse.
“Is there anybody out there who finds it to be beyond the pale that a father was not consulted when they released the perpetrator back into the public with zero-dollar bail, yet they are holding Cain on no bail?” Geragos asked, following the ruling. “This is why people are disgusted – and rightfully so – with the criminal justice system.”
In addition to one count of attempted murder, Velasquez also has been charged with shooting at a motor vehicle or aircraft (one count), assault with a firearm (three counts), assault with a deadly weapon (three counts), willfully discharging a firearm from a vehicle (one count), and carrying a loaded firearm with intent to commit a felony (one count).
If found guilty of attempted murder, Velasquez faces a minimum of 20 years and up to life in prison. He faces additional time if found guilty of other counts.
You can read Judge Brown’s full statement below.
“This court has had an opportunity to review the 37 letters that were sent this morning, many of them from lawyers and other professional and court figures and prominent figures in the community. I have reviewed the Statement of Facts. I’ve reviewed the articles that were presented here in court. The court acknowledges that the courtroom is full of supporters for Mr. Velasquez. It looks like (Microsoft) Teams, the virtual platform is filled with reporters. The court says all of these things to say that what is important in this court is the law. I’m going to apply the law to the facts as I understand them to be. I believe that the court has to review Article 1, Section 12 of the California prosecution, which talks about acts involving violence upon another person. The facts are clear here that this was an alleged act of violence, according to laws – following an individual, chasing an individual for some miles, ramming individuals with his vehicle, and shooting at the individuals at point-blank range. The court, reviewing those facts, understands the surrounding circumstances. It is clear to this court that there is clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood that would result in great bodily injury, not just to the named complaint witnesses in this case, but to Santa Clara residents at large. This case involves allegations of extreme recklessness to human life, ramming a vehicle in the middle of the day where our citizens are out driving, going about their business, and shooting out of a car at other individuals, which is reckless by any standard. Anyone could’ve been injured. Anyone could’ve been killed. When this court looks at Article 1, Section 12, it is this level of risk that the court must take into consideration. With that said, this court is making a ruling that the risk is too great. There will be no bail set at this time.”