Cain Velasquez denied bail: Judge disregards possible CTE, conditions proposed by defense
Cain Velasquez will remain behind bars.
At a hearing Monday, Velasquez, represented by defense attorney Mark Geragos, appeared inside a courtroom at the Santa Clara County Hall of Justice where a request for bail was denied by Judge Shelyna Brown in the attempted murder case against the former UFC heavyweight champion.
Both parties were granted time to make additional arguments, in addition to the statements in previously filed paperwork. The hearing lasted approximately 30 minutes and took place in front of a packed courtroom of Velasquez supporters that included former UFC heavyweight champion Daniel Cormier and American Kickboxing Academy head coach Javier Mendez.
Evidence of traumatic brain injuries, CTE
Originally denied bail at arraignment March 7, the defense argued multiple changes in circumstances since then called for another hearing and reconsideration by Brown, the same judge who initially ruled.
According to the defense, traumatic brain injuries and potential CTE – presumably suffered through his fighting career – may have caused Velasquez to act impulsively. Velasquez is alleged to have shot at Harry Goularte and striking Goularte’s stepfather, Paul Bender, as they drove on public streets. Days prior to the alleged shooting, Goularte was arrested on accusations of “lewd acts” with a 4-year-old member of Velasquez’s family.
“The defense has proposed a medical change with regard to TBI (traumatic brain injury) and CTE,” Judge Brown said as she summarized the motion for bail by the defense. “They have presented some evidence that Mr. Velasquez suffers from TBI and possibly from CTE. They argue that perhaps it’s one of, or both of, these medical concerns or conditions that may have led to a lack of impulse control.”
Additionally, the defense outlined specific proposed terms of a bail agreement, which included but were not limited to $1 million posted bail, electronic monitoring, relocation to an out-of-state inpatient facility, and/or around-the-clock supervision.
‘Cain Velasquez has no respect for human life’
The Santa Clara county district attorney’s office, represented by Aaron French, argued there was no reasonable terms of agreement that would eliminate the risk of alleged victims Goularte, his mother Patricia Goularte (who was also in the vehicle), and Bender.
Much of the reasoning from the district attorney’s office was in line with its talking points from the March 7 arraignment. However, French offered up the floor to Paul Bender, the man Velasquez allegedly shot, to join via video call. Bender provided his first comments since the alleged incident.
“Cain Velasquez has no respect for human life,” Bender said. “He could’ve easily shot the family in the car next to us, innocent pedestrians, or even young children. Cain Velasquez does not care who sees him do this. He does not care about the rule of law and has no respect for our judicial system. If given the opportunity, I believe he will try to finish what he started. I am fearful for my life, as well as for the lives of my family. No amount of bail or GPS monitor will stop Cain Velasquez.”
Related
Daniel Cormier: 'It absolutely kills me' to see what Cain Velasquez is going through
Josh Thomson: Justice system failed Cain Velasquez, 'breaks my heart to see him have to go through this'
'He didn't do it': Defense attorney claims innocence for accused molester Harry Goularte, alleged Cain Velasquez target
‘There is another victim here’
Similar to his first request for bail, Geragos highlighted the alleged actions of Goularte on Velasquez’s 4-year-old relative, whom Geragos identified as Velasquez’s son. He also criticized the California legal system for allowing Goularte out on bail while keeping Velasquez behind bars.
“There is another victim here,” Geragos said. “The victim is the close relative of Mr. Velasquez, who is a victim of Mr. Goularte. That is somebody who also deserves to have his father back home with him. He deserves to have him and help heal at an especially traumatic time. His father has been ripped from him based upon all this. Mr. Goularte is out there without any kind of bail whatsoever. … I submit to you that there is a concern. The concern is Mr. Velasquez’s child. That child should have his father available to him at this very, what I would consider, very critical point.”
Judge Brown interjected and reiterated to the defense that she is not overseeing the Goularte case, making his alleged crime irrelevant to her decision making – something she outlined multiple times in the initial arraignment.
“I don’t believe you are making any ground by making this case about Mr. Goularte,” Brown said. “For me, it is not before me, and I have no jurisdiction over it. It is an improper argument.”
‘The court is not ruled by community opinion’
Judge Brown ultimately denied Velasquez based on what she once again called “reckless” actions, according to the facts. While Brown acknowledged the potential for TBI and CTE to play a factor in the alleged incident, she said it did not change the “risk analysis” given the circumstances. Those factors would be considered during a trial.
The judge also commended the public for its interest in the case but indicated that it has no impact on the law.
“I’ve reviewed all of the letters of community support for Mr. Velasquez and the letters in support of Mr. Goularte,” Brown said. “The court always appreciates community interest in a case, but the court is not ruled by community opinion at all. The court is ruled only the law. The law, in this case, is clear.”
Brown’s full statement on denying Velasquez bail is below:
This court has taken a lot of time in reviewing this case. I’ve reviewed papers submitted by both counsels. I’ve reviewed all of the letters of community support for Mr. Velasquez and the letters in support of Mr. Goularte. The court always appreciates community interest in a case, but the court is not ruled by community opinion at all. The court is ruled only the law. The law, in this case, is clear. This court has previously ruled and made clear findings in regard to Article 1, Section 12, Subsections B and C. The hearing today is to determine whether there is a change in circumstance that changes the court’s analysis with regard to risk to the community. The defense has proposed a medical change with regard to TBI (traumatic brain injury) and CTE. They have presented some evidence that Mr. Velasquez suffers from TBI and possibly from CTE. They argue that perhaps it’s one of, or both of, these medical concerns or conditions that may have led to a lack of impulse control. They have suggested an unlocked facility in Texas for inpatient and a facility in California for outpatient, possible treatment of these possibly diagnoses. The court will find that there is no medical change or any change in circumstance that changes the risk analysis for this court. A diagnosis of CTE or TBI might be a suitable defense or something that should be considered for a patient. But for this court, it does not establish a change in circumstance under the law. It does not reduce the risk. The court will now rule that the alleged facts of the case are opposite of what CTE alleges. There was CTE or conditions or things that might cause someone to act impulsively, or in this case, the facts allege a deliberate act of following the family to Mr. Goularte’s house, and then waiting for Mr. Goularte, and then shooting at Mr. Goularte and his family. That’s something for the trial court. That’s not an issue for this court. If this court was to find a change in circumstance under the law, release to an unlocked facility out of the state is not a sufficient means that this court would reconsider. The reason this court says that is because this was such a reckless disregard for human life. In this case, it is not just Mr. Goularte and his family. It is every single citizen who was in danger of being shot or rammed with a vehicle at the time of this seven-mile chase. This court is not thinking only of Mr. Goularte and his family. This court is considering every single citizen in Santa Clara county who was in proximity to this alleged incident. For these reasons, there are no least-restrictive means that will satisfy this court about the risk to the community. The court will not grant bail at this time. It will not change its prior ruling.
What’s next
Velasquez, 39, is due back in court for a plea hearing June 10. The hearing was scheduled for dates in both April and May but was granted continuances at the request of the defense.
At the plea hearing, it will be determined whether or not the case will go to trial, or if an agreement will be reached between the two parties.
Velasquez faces charges of attempted murder (one count), 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.
Since his arrest, Velasquez has received support from many in and around the mixed martial arts community. A large group of vocal supporters, including notable UFC fighters past and present, have showed up at every hearing to date.
