As you can imagine, although we respect Josh
Hill
Judge Hill as well as his decision today,
we disagree with it
and to be honest we’re very surprised by it a couple
of weeks ago. The judge laid out so conditions and requirements
that he wanted the defense to meet.
We believe we’ve reached and satisfied, each.
One of those requirements, specifically,
he asked us to find a bill bonding company that would do
immediate notification of any violations.
It’s of the GPS monitoring.
We did that
he asked that we provide Fifi affidavit
that mr. Clark filled out, in order to assess what his
financial situation was,
we did that he asked that we provide the passport
ID card that was not confiscated from him at the time
of his arrest,
we did that.
We complied with every requirement that the judge asked
of us
only to be told today that it would not be lured. So yes
we are very disappointed.
We disagree
and
frankly were very surprised.
You all plan.
We plan to take every remedy available
by law for mr. Clark
because what we do believe is that it is the high-profile nature
of this case.
That has really affected the constitutional rights
of mr. Clark
have been practicing 24 years in this County
and I can’t remember a time that a bond
at for murder was set at two million dollars.
Well, certainly, I do understand
everything that surrounds this case,
but I think that there are two controlling factors that need to be considered
whether or not mr. Clark is a danger to society
given the fact that he has never been truly charged with
any violent offense. Never been convicted of an offense,
never been in trouble with the law in any capacity.
I
think that says a lot that he is not a danger to society.
And in fact, the judge commented on that today
and then when we talk about,
The only other factor that the judge felt was concerning
to him, was the flight risk factor
and the things that he noted, that he took into
consideration
was in fact, the passport,
the fact that
mr. Clark had looked into fake tickets.
Well, if we turn over both paths Sports to the court,
as we did, in this case,
and along with that, there is GPS monitoring,
that will immediately notify the court, the prosecutor
and things of that nature.
I believe that we placed together for the court circumstances,
that would alleviate any concerns for Flight Risk.
So it just leaves us puzzle. What other factors
are there other than the high-profile nature of
this case? That would cause the judge not
to reduce it to something that is reasonable. And
I would submit that even a three hundred thousand dollar bond
which is what we ask for is substantial in nature
for any average citizen. And there has not
been
One iota of direct evidence to suggest
that mr. Clark. And his family, and their financial situation
is anything other than average. And
so, it just begs. The question,
what is really controlling
the issues here? And so again, we plan to
take the remedies available to mr. Clark, by filing
an appeal with the necessary, higher court for them to
take a look at everything that is going on and what went
into this decision.
The judge also commented on
I guess.
Tony of some sort, use
the kind of alluded to he believes that there is some
kind of funding source out there somewhere.
Is that sufficient enough for you?
It’s not sufficient enough for me but apparently, it was sufficient enough
for the court. And again, we respect judge Hills decision.
However,
who is this Uncle Tony?
Why hasn’t the prosecutor brought this person
into court? This is just a facade again, that
does not truly exist. There is no.
No evidence to suggest that. There is an Uncle Tony
with a boatload of money out there willing to put
behind mr. Clark and his escape. And so
I think innuendos and statements by the prosecutor,
should not be considered evidence.
What should be considered evidence? And what
what the Constitution demands
that what should be considered as evidence
is testimony before court, our evidence. There was
no
Some only by any witness that there is a mr.
Tony or Uncle Tony that exists with money, that
he intends to fund. Mr. Clark’s
I guess. Flee from the jurisdiction. I think we put on evidence
to suggest that actual contrary to that and that
is he canceled his trip to Mexico. If he truly wanted
to flee,
he would be gone. He had a ticket, he could have left
an addition to that. We brought in a witness that says he was looking
at leasing
an apartment after the incident occurred.
Third. And so I think that speaks volumes as to whether or not mr.
Clark really intense
to flee the jurisdiction.
So, to answer your question. No, I don’t think it’s sufficient evidence.
Do
you think the Judge changed his mind because in the earlier hearings
it
sounded like
what you provided is what he asked for
and now that he has it
he’s not reducing the bond. So did he change his mind? Or did
he
not get what he wanted? What what do you think about that?
There could be no other explanation other than the judge has
changed his mind. I think everyone heard what the requirements
were in the previous hearing. He specifically asked us
to do certain things.
We
Everything that he asked us to do.
We even brought the GPS monitor Chan company
into court
to testify to tell them
and to tell the court, we can do this,
we can do immediate notification.
The court even stated in open court that
they trust this bonding company. And so, to be honest,
we’re just really surprised but
the fight is not over.
We do believe
without a shadow of a doubt that when the time comes
we will
Be able to show mr. Clark’s innocence in this
and I think something has been lost with all the hype
and all the tragedy that’s involved in this offense
and that Mr. Clarke is Presumed
Innocent.
I think we forget about that and then we forget about that. There
is a constitution,
that no matter who the complainant is, should protect
the defendants.
And it’s just causing me a little concerned when it comes to those issues
because of the high-profile nature of this case manager,
Easy with KPRC wanted to ask.
You brought this up in a sense?
Why do you believe that Clark is innocent?
I believe that Clark is innocent the same reason. The prosecutors
believe that he’s not
I have reviewed
the video
and this case my team has reviewed the videos
and this case. And when the time is right, we believe
we have sufficient evidence to prove his innocence
Judge
also mention that there’s still a lot more than you need
a lot more than prosecutors. The,
how is that process
as far as getting evidence
going?
Well, as you can imagine right now. It’s kind of been stifled
because we’ve been dealing with this bond issue and the holidays,
and so put all those factors together right now. We’ve been focusing
on trying to get mr. Crocker reasonable Bond.
But we intend to, you know, hit the ground running next week
and move forward with the actual
serious claims that we believe exist for mr. Clark in his
defense,
the judge
also made a point to say in
the hearing today that the two billion dollar Bond originally said,
likely
violates
your clients house additional, right?
But the 1 million dollar
doesn’t necessarily
do that.
What’s the difference in those two amounts?
To
be honest? That’s just start issue.
If the judge feels a, two million dollar bond
is unconstitutional because there’s no one that could make.
It in this court under that same premise a 1
million dollar
Bond basically has the same effect. There was
a license bondsman who’s been in business for 20 years
or over 20 years. Who stated there isn’t
a
realistic bonding company, that would post bond
for this family
and the resources. They have available at 1 million dollars.
So in essence, the consequence is the same.
So we contend that even a 1 million dollar bond is
And this particular case,
you don’t let the high profile Pages. You think
a lot of that
is influencing the judge isn’t want to lower the bail. Even get out
and have
the talk of oh
oh they let this guy out.
Basically,
he doesn’t get the judge attached
to the person who will allow before had to jail. Sounds like you feel like
play a role,
I definitely think that is played a role. I have a lot of respect
for Judge Hill
but he’s a human being too.
And so I believe that there are a lot of factors that went into
this.
Feeling to this decision.
And I think the hive just to be frank. I think the high-profile nature
of it and all the media attention that it’s getting
had a lot to do with it
because
defendants, who are similarly situated as mr. Clark,
I’m not walking around with a 1 million dollar Bond
Arda. Shouldn’t say walking around
simular, defendant situated as mr. Clark
do not have a 1 million dollar bond with
no prior criminal history
for murder
with self-defense claims.
Oops.
So at this point you think there’s anything else you can provide to
judge failed
to change his mind
because you re gave him what he requested
and he said he was still open today
to further discussion but what else could you provide to
him?
That’s the question we have. We don’t know if there’s anything else
we can provide because everything that he has asked us for
we have provided. So I think that I think the right
thing to do is to respect his decision and move up
to the higher courts.
You measurement. This is a high-profile case.
If you take take off out of the equation, does it remain a high-profile
case?
No, it does not.
That’s the only reason is, the high-profile case.
People are being charged with murder every day in Harris County.
I get a call two to three times a week
about murder cases. In Harris County.
The only one that receives this type of media attention
is the one where takeoff is the complainant.
I just ask that everyone
keep an open mind
as we are going through this process.
I ask that everyone remove the hype
from this case.
And remember
that, when you are charged with a crime in the United States of
America,
there are safeguards under our Constitution,
that protect you.
And there is a day in time where your guilt or innocence
will be determined
and it’s not at the level where your bond is.
Tutor.
Because at this point, we believe that bond is being used
as a tool of Oppression and not to assure that the defendant
appears in court.