TWO CASE HISTORIES QUESTIONING PRE-TRIAL RELEASE BONDS

(My name is Ralph Tipton. Maria Guzman Tipton was my wife. Thank you for asking questions about her death. There's a lot of things that are not making much sense (and) the bond they gave the lady is just one of the problems. Please let people know that if they have information that can help me to please contact me. I'm ripped apart by the death of my angel and want the communities help. Thank you and God bless.) 

ralph tipton <notpit73@gmail.com>

By Juan Montoya
Theoretically, the Cameron County Pre-Trial Release Program works to provide indigent defendants an opportunity to gain their freedom before going to trial to face the charges against them.
As envisioned, the program addresses the he county's interest in lowering the jail population, sparing the cost on taxpayers, and providing the poor with a way to gain their freedom without paying the commercial, bond companies 10 percent plus tax rates.
Instead, the program issues bonds at 3 percent, meaning that on, say, a $1,000 bond set by a judge, the defendant would have to come up with $30 (plus tax) instead of $100.
The program was championed at its outset by now-District Judge Arturo Nelson who listed the reasons above for its implementation. He also said that local bail bond companies were gouging poor people with their commercial rates. We asked and apparently Nelson is the one public official who is responsible for the program's policies and operations.
To make sure all indigent defendants have access to the lower rates, the pre-trial release bond staff has access to the inmate population to sign up clients, a practice which has drawn numerous complaints from bond companies who say this constitutes unfair competition from the state. They say they have to pay their office costs, employee salaries, and the overhead associated with running a public business while the county subsidizes the program and the taxpaying public picks up the tab.
For example, they say that while the Bail Bond Board is cracking down on companies whose clients have Failed To Appear (FTA) by demanding the full collateral of their bonds, the Pre-Trial release over the last two years has run behind to the tune of more than $200,000 from clients who absconded and failed to appear in court.
"If one of the companies now working had that kind of debt, we wouldn't be working long," said a bondsman. "But show's going to collect on the pre-trial bond program?"
Director Kevin Saenz also explained that the staff was diligent in making sure that only indigent defendants have access to the program and that they must meet income guidelines before they qualify and are eligible for 3 percent bond.
However, we know of at least two instances where people charged with serious crimes have been declared eligible for the pre-trial release discounted bonds who then turned around and hired high-priced attorneys to defend them once they were released.
Here are two cases:

On Monday, March 2, police were alerted to a hit-and-run accident that took the life of 37-year-old Maria Guzman on Farm-to-Market 803 just north of the FM 511 intersection. People instantly recognized her as an employee of Hernandez Tortilla Factory in Los Fresnos.
Police investigating the accident issued a warrant for the arrest of Marisa Govea Hernandez, 41 on Friday. Later that day, five days after Guzman's death, Govea turned herself in to the police.
Accident involving death is a second degree felony punishable from two to 20 years behind bars.
Nonetheless, Judge Valerie Garcia set a bond of $15,000.
The Pre-Trial Release Bond Program, after doing their due diligence, provided the 3 percent bond for woman and she was released after paying just $452.

On July 17, 2014, 37-year-old Harlingen city employee Rachael Diana Olivarez was accused of embezzling thousands of dollars in city money over the course of eight months preceding her arrest.
She was charged and arrested on a felony theft charge involving about $48,000 in city cash.
The alleged embezzlement happened between November 15, 2013 and July 3, 2014, according to Harlingen police.She was arrested on the second degree felony charge and the theft charge was enhanced to a felony because the 37-year-old woman was “in the capacity of a public servant” during the crime, police documented.She was the box office manager for arts and entertainment with the City of Harlingen. A judge set her bond at $75,000.
The Pre-Trial Release program also provided the 3 percent bond for her release, or about $2,250.

Now, the Pre-Trial Release Bond program administrators say that both these women qualified for the 3 percent bonds because they were indigent. But how can they explain that the hit-and-run defendant – once released – now lists high-powered (and pricey) defense attorney Ernesto Gamez as her counsel?
Or, in the case of the Harlingen woman, she hired Noe D. Garza (also not cheap) for her defense.
The bond set on the embezzlement defendant was $75,000, but in the case of the woman accused of being the hit-and-run driver who left the scene of the accident where her alleged victim died, it was only $15,000. Go figure.
The Harlingen woman was charged with stealing almost $50,000 from the city, yet she was certified as indigent by the program. She later pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to five years in the Texas Department of Corrections with credit for time served by Judge Migdalia Lopez.
It is interesting to note that both Gamez and Garza are considered to be part of the "in" crowd in Cameron County legal circles. Both are deeply involved in the political life of the county and their support of candidates often influence the results. Garza, for example, throws parties in his ranch "Las Glorias" on Alton Gloor Road that is attended by anybody who is anybody. Good legal help, we all know, doesn't come cheap.
Was the Pre-Trial Bond Program meant for two defendants like these two women who have demonstrated they have the wherewithal to hire expensive legal defenses?
And is it – as at least one blogger (the BV ) – hinted that there is more to this racket yet to come than we know about.