Tensions Rise During Bond Reduction Hearing for Capital Murder Defendant

SAN ANGELO, TX – Friday morning, Defense Attorney Frank Brown stood before Judge Jay Weatherby’s court to present a motion that would reduce the $500,000 bond set for 19-year-old Capital Murder suspect Erick Ramos. As Brown and District Attorney Allison Palmer discussed the matter, tension arose between the counselors.

Ramos is currently in custody of the Tom Green County Jail since his indictment as a co-defendant in the murders of Zane Lopez and Juan Guerrero in March of 2016. Brown argued that the bond should be reduced for his client, which would make it more plausible for Ramos’s family to post the bond.

Brown began the proceeding by calling Ramos’s stepmother, Ms. Cardona, to the stand. He questioned her regarding the efforts the family had made to try to contact bondsmen and post bond for Ramos. She stated they had been unsuccessful in having the financial means to pay the necessary amount. Brown also questioned if Cardona and the Ramos family would be willing to host Ramos in their home while being electronically monitored, to which she responded they would.

As D.A Palmer began questioning Cardona, she asked her if Ramos had ever been removed from school for truancy issues. Cardona explained that he had been ordered by Judge Daniels to be removed from school after he missed attending on several occasions. She stated she had been a part of the Ramos family for the last two years and wasn't aware, or rather, had no first-hand information regarding any issues Ramos had faced “before her time.”

Palmer continued to question the witness regarding what she knew about Ramos’s activities when he was out of school. Cardona stated that Ramos worked at his brother’s company, Ramos Plastering, and that he spent ‘the majority of the time” at home during the evenings." The witness was dismissed after questioning.

Brown then entered three documents as evidence; however, the state objected to the first document. At that time, it wasn't clear to the audience in the court what the evidence was. Judge Weatherby accepted all three documents into evidence along with the audio recording of the alleged confession Ramos gave to police.

In the audio, SAPD detectives question Ramos and tell him that this was his “chance to tell us your side of the story.” The defendant told them he did not want to say anything. In the portion played to the court, the defendant's alleged confession was not heard. Brown explained this was part 1 of the 2 disks provided by the defense.  

Palmer then proceeded to question her first witness, a Detective with the SAPD, regarding how their investigation had led to Ramos’s arrest. The detective explained that after identifying a conflict between the victim Zane Lopez and members of the Dark Side Two-Six gang, it was discovered they had committed the act against the victims. According to the investigation, members of Dark Side Two-Six had exchanged threatening messages with Lopez.

On that evening of March, Ramos is accused of driving the vehicle in which the defendants used to travel to Lopez’s home and fire into this backyard unprovoked, according to the detective. There was no indication that Lopez and Guerrero had physically engaged the individuals at the time of the shooting or before. All evidence suggested that the boys had been fired upon by members of Dark Side Two-Six. During the investigation, other co-defendants and members of the gang had identified Ramos as a member. The group was also caught on video entering and leaving a quinceañera together earlier that evening, and it is then inferred that they traveled to Lopez’s house and murdered the two boys.

According to the investigation, Ramos drove the vehicle in order to carry out the hit that Gilberto Reyes, the leader of Dark Side Two-Six had ordered. After committing the act, they all traveled to Reyes’s home to hide the weapons. Palmer also questioned if he was aware of the problems with truancy and probation that Ramos had had as a juvenile, to which the detective responded he did.

When Brown questioned the detective, he asked if he was aware that Lopez had also threatened the members of Dark Side Two-Six, to which the detective stated he was aware of that, but that there was no evidence that Lopez or Guerrero had engaged any of the defendants. Brown moved on to question how exactly the bond for his client had been set after the confession was taken. The detective explained that it was “standard procedure” for law enforcement to draw up their complaint based on the evidence that that they had gathered and then have the district's attorney’s office of a JP decide the bond amount. In Ramos’s case, the D.A office had suggested the bond amount of $500,000, which had been upheld by the judge.

He then moved on to question how the police had acquired the confession from Ramos, who had repeatedly declined to talk. The detective explained that he had been instructed by his superior to continue questioning the subject. Brown, however, questioned the validity of the confession if his client had repeatedly refused to incriminate himself while in police custody. This question would mark one of the many objections by Palmer.

She argued that the motion in court was to reduce the bond amount of the defendant; it was “not a suppression hearing.” Brown argued that his client’s bond amount relied solely on that confession and that his line of questioning was reasonable. Because of the said confession, his client had been in “solitary confinement for nearly a year.”  

After things got a little heated, the judge told Brown, “Let's move forward from this line of questioning.” He also stated that even though he knew the connection Brown was trying to make, a bond reduction hearing was not the place to do that.

As Brown continued the cross examination of the witness, he continued to ask the detective the same question despite Judge Weatherby's demand to move forward. At one point when the witness looked at Palmer, Brown instructed the witness to “not look at the prosecutor.”

Palmer continued to object to the questioning and Brown’s indication to the detective. The judge asked Brown to move away from that line of questioning since the detective had answered the questions regarding procedure. As the detective was released from the witness stand, the state called Erick Ramos as a second witness.

Brown immediately objected stating that his client had the right to avoid “incriminating himself,” and that placing him on the witness stand and under oath could cause him to do that. Brown stated the prosecution didn't have the right to question him at a bond reduction hearing.

Judge Weatherby reminded Brown that, by submitting a written affidavit from Ramos (this was the evidence to which the state had objected to previously), he had to permit the state to cross examine the defendant, otherwise it would be a “backdoor way” of presenting testimony. Brown continued to object to that, so the judge allowed Brown the opportunity to withdraw the evidence, which he moved to do. Palmer then withdrew her motion to call Ramos to the stand.

After stating his “trust in the court's judgment,” Brown rested, as did Palmer.

Despite the testimony and tension, Judge Weatherby stated that “having heard the evidence, the bond stays at half a million dollars.”

Additionally, amidst all of this, a trial date was also set for Ramos. The court decided on September 18th to begin jury selection and allocated five days to carry out the trial. One of Ramos’s co-defendants, Gilberto Reyes, is also scheduled to begin his trial the weeks prior to Ramos.