Cain Velasquez's attorney files petition to California appellate court requesting release from jail

Cain Velasquez’s lead defense attorney, Mark Geragos, filed a 246-page petition Wednesday to the California Courts of Appeal asking for the release of the former UFC champion, who has been denied bail three times by the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

According to the document obtained by MMA Junkie, Geragos filed in the 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose. The defense is asking for “immediate release on a reasonable bail or remand the matter to the superior court for an expedited hearing” and for the court to “grant such other appropriate relief.”

Velasquez, 40, has been held without bail since his Feb. 28 arrest on an attempted murder charge, among other gun-related counts. Velasquez allegedly chased down a truck carrying Harry Goularte, as well as Goularte’s mother and stepfather, Paul Bender. Goularte is accused of molesting Velasquez’s 4-year-old son. Velasquez allegedly shot at the truck and struck Bender in the arm.

Judge Shelyna Brown three times has heard Geragos’ arguments for Velasquez to be granted bail – and each time she has pointed to a high-risk analysis as the reason for denial. Geragos has offered numerous stipulations, including a $1 million bail amount, relocation out of state, 24/7 in-person supervision, electronic monitoring, and more – all stipulations he reiterated in his appellate court filing.

Three main arguments

In the petition, Geragos points to three main arguments the decision for denying Velasquez bail should be overturned:

• The Pretrial Detention Order Violates the Due Process Clauses of the California and U.S. Constitutions.

The defense argues that Velasquez has not committed a capital crime and presents no threats. It argues the only consideration of the court, therefore, should be there’s a clear likelihood he is a danger. The defense pointed to the budding civil lawsuit between the two parties, in which Bender has indicated he will invoke his fifth amendment right. Bender also provided an account at Velasquez’s second bail denial hearing in the criminal case. Given these potential contradictions, the defense stated that Bender’s account should no longer be in consideration. The filing also stated Velasquez is no longer a threat because he recognizes another action would be harmful to what’s most important: being with his family.

Additionally, the defense claims Judge Brown didn’t properly consider less restrictive alternatives to imprisonment. The defense also said Judge Brown never stated a specific reason as to why an alternative wouldn’t be allowed.

• The Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying Bail.

The defense argues Judge Brown didn’t recognize a change in circumstance either time a motion to reconsider bail was brought forth. Velasquez’s health issues and the impending fifth amendment activation from Bender, the defense considered to be that. Additionally, the defense pointed to an argument in an earlier hearing from the District Attorney’s office, in which attorney Aaron French said no bail amount would be enough to exchange for human life, as Velasquez is wealthy as a professional athlete. The defense argued that was against the foundation of bail.

• Even if Mr. Velasquez’s Pretrial Detention Was Initially Valid, His Continued Pretrial Detention Constitutes Impermissible Punishment in Violation of the Due Process Clauses of the California and U.S. Constitutions

Velasquez has been imprisoned since February. The defense argued, without being found guilty, that five months is unnecessary and “has degenerated into punishment.”

Defense claim differs from police report?

Throughout the petition, the defense reiterates how Velasquez has been cooperative throughout the legal process and has no prior criminal history.

Additionally, the defense shed light on the encounter with Goularte. According to the defense, an “altercation” occurred when Velasquez and his wife accidentally ran into Goularte when they thought he was still in jail on the lewd acts charge involving their son.

The defense furthers that EEG-proven traumatic brain and potential CTE caused Velasquez to act impulsively and that his impulsive decision-making can be worked on with medical professionals.

The defense’s claim of an accidental run-in differs from the police report, which stated that its “investigation showed that Velasquez followed Victim Patricia Goularte and Victim Bender from their residence in San Martin to Morgan Hill and then to San Jose where Velasquez began shooting at the Victim’s automobile.”

What’s next

Velasquez is due back in court Aug. 5 for a motion hearing, with an Aug. 19 plea hearing also on the court calendar. Meanwhile, Goularte has pleaded not guilty to a felony charge of lewd acts with a child. He is set to have a preliminary trial hearing Sept. 20. The first hearing for a civil lawsuit filed by the Velasquez family against the Goulartes and Bender is set for Sept. 6, with summons served.

In the previously referenced civil case, the Velasquez family filed a lawsuit against the Goulartes and Bender after their 4-year-old son was allegedly molested by Harry Goularte possibly “100 times.”

If found guilty of attempted murder, Velasquez faces a minimum of 20 years and up to life in prison, according to the California penal code. He faces additional time if found guilty of other counts.