Public Defender Titiimaea “Ti” Ta‘ase’s Masterful Bail Reduction Negotiation

After writing part one of my bail reduction special on Michael Green, I would like to finish up by discussing Public Defender Ti’s artful and strategic approach to the same task.

To give you some background, Ti was at a significant disadvantage compared to Michael Green since public defenders rotate coverage in Judge Johnson’s courtroom and only briefly meet clients when their cases are called. This means attorneys like Ti must negotiate on the fly, often with limited preparation, all in real time. Yet despite these hurdles, Ti’s approach stood out for its agile pivots and top-notch negotiating skills.

A Quick Reminder: The S.A.F.E. Framework

For readers who may have missed the last issue, here’s a recap of bail reduction “pro tips” reimagined into the S.A.F.E. Framework:

1. S – Show Your Support System

   • Have family, employers, or mentors at the hearing to vouch for defendants.

   • Reinforces stability and local ties, reducing perceived flight risk.

1. A – Attire & Attitude

   • Present yourself respectfully: supporters should dress well and remain composed.

   • A calm, collected demeanor can positively influence proceedings.

1. F – Follow Up on the Bail Study

   • Check with your attorney if the Intake Service Center (ISC) bail report has been completed; a recommendation for Supervised Release (SR) could mean no bail needed.

1. E – Enlist a Professional Bail Agent

   • A seasoned bail agent’s involvement signals both financial backing and a third-party stake in release.

Smart, Realistic Requests

Rather than making an unrealistic leap—like asking for a $100,000 bail to drop to $1,000—Ti proposed a reduction that was bold yet still plausible. This indicates to the judge that Ti respected the seriousness of the case and the court’s original bail assessment, thereby making his request far more credible.

HOW NOT TO PETITION FOR A BAIL REDUCTION

It’s frustrating to see public defenders squander a chance to reduce bail by offering little more than, “The bail report doesn’t recommend supervised release, so we ask for a bail reduction in the alternate.” Failing to mention a defendant’s strong community ties, steady job, family obligations, or willingness to seek treatment is a missed opportunity in the art of the bail reduction negotiation. Not comparing the current bail to lower amounts granted for similar charges—nor leveraging the defendant’s ability to pay bail—shows zero creativity.

Unfortunately, in the public sector, there’s no financial incentive to go the extra mile; this is what makes Ti so special, he goes hard in the paint regardless.

As Charlie Munger famously said, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.”

Ti never commits the rookie mistake of requesting an absurd drop—like going from $500,000 to $1,000—that’s bound to fail. Instead, it’s smarter to respect the court’s established anchor/starting point then aim for about half that amount.

Cash-Only Bail as a Positive Tool

In this case, Ti’s negotiation with Judge Johnson took an interesting turn. Historically, cash-only bail is seen as punitive because it requires the entire amount in cash—an option most people simply can’t afford. However, for the first time in my 20+ year career, I saw it used in a way that actually benefited the defendant.

Initially, Ti moved for a half-off reduction from the existing bail. While Judge Johnson considered it, Ti asked to speak privately with the defendant’s mother, who was present in court. After learning she had a budget of $3,000, which also needed to be partitioned off to post additional traffic related cash bails, Judge Johnson offered a $2,000 cash-only solution.

He reasoned that $2,000 in cash is roughly equivalent to a $20,000 bail bond in cost, with a crucial benefit: the entire $2,000 shall be refunded once the case was resolved.

This setup allowed a defendant—who nearly qualified for supervised release—to go free while preserving family resources. And in a roundabout way, it still guaranteed a return to court, backed by the value of a $20,000 bail bond. It was the first time I’d seen cash-only bail genuinely serve in the defendant’s interests, proving it can be strategic rather than strictly punitive.

A Word on Cash-Only Bail

I often speak with prominent attorneys about bail practices. One “Mount Rushmore-level” retired attorney recently told me that he considers cash-only bail unconstitutional. While I didn’t go to law school and can’t address the constitutional argument directly, I can say that early in my career, a common “secret in plain sight” was the routine use of $20,000 cash-only bail for probation violators.

The intention was to ensure violators spent at least some time in custody, since posting a bail bond could just embolden a drug addicted defendant to repeatedly offend, then bail out with ill gotten gains.

On a side note, I’ve never quite understood how a defendant can receive a “golden ticket” out of prison—only to disregard the terms of their probation. From that perspective, violating probation and spending three weeks in custody on a cash-only bail before a hearing can seem like a quid pro quo: a short period of incarceration in exchange for what’s likely to be a resentencing and a return to the very probation that was initially violated.

I still struggle with how cash-only bail can be leveraged to incarcerate people. It’s frequently unfeasible, given that 57% of Americans, according to Bankrate’s 2023 “Annual Emergency Savings Report,” can’t cover a $1,000 emergency. Asking for $20,000 in cash renders a defendant’s right to bail useless.

This dilemma also places the bail bond profession in the crossfire of the jail-overcrowding debate, despite our field having no say in whether the court sets no bail, cash-only bail, or a bail bond option.

Unfortunately, leading bail reform efforts often focus on reclassifying felonies as misdemeanors or reducing arrestable offenses—merely resulting in cite-and-release practices—while cash-only bail remains unaddressed. Removing or limiting cash-only bail could have been an easy victory for reformers, but the more radical segments have instead pushed for untested bail methods (including recidivism algorithms and zero-bail policies) that sound good in theory but have already been shown to fail in practice.

Final Thoughts

These two cases—one led by a private attorney, the other by a public defender—highlight the importance of preparation, family support, and savvy legal strategy. Mr. Green showcased how addressing procedural inconsistencies and rallying family support can help a defendant, while Ti skillfully negotiated a balanced reduction that worked in everyone’s favor.

Although bail hearings may seem routine, they carry immense consequences. When attorneys, bail agents, and families come prepared—armed with facts, realistic proposals, and visible support—the likelihood of a fair and favorable outcome rises considerably. Having spent two decades in this profession, I can confidently say that our judiciary remains fair in bail matters. A well-thought-out approach can truly be a game-changer.

If you found value in this newsletter, take just a moment to leave A-1 Bail Bonds a 5-star review—it only takes a few seconds. Stay safe out there!

Be well, folks!
Got Bail,
Nick