[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6174370,"mediaKeyId","5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c","parentId",5370500,"title","Bond‑modification motion listed as filed but not accepted; hearing pending in Waters case","audioSeconds",62,"startMs",304050,"endMs",366390,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c&start=304&end=366","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c/thumbnail_304050.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6174370/Texas/Bondmodification-motion-listed-as-filed-but-not-accepted-hearing-pending-in-Waters-case","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174370-ae4d8b7935cd13317e4a8b8d2ced2027/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928315&Signature=Mn8FCRphdjECZAm7ux3MnfCg8dikww2iqOU8RFZkCW4BXb5qgrrH4zSLycc9rD~toUFvAfH1sSvIFy~0RQmt4GV3heEMAtEG2xvkVwoiERGxszm4EvMDXV9dQsRpccFz9dAeWnGVkGJLm8~5AkOWwvA-XfKda23hoVPKYcvNc8E9O4s8r4tFdHQQEM6dZlaEm59smaYN~8wA0fV0gM9hBfE4MebnpUPNdgelrV9xQVyF-LaEOFCYwvpqSA64-xtaxdzrFkUuMTQfj5qrg1pJKGxAt5Y96RoswnxjBHSaL7fwDcp3uE-KFaFP5r0Lbl4qHKV~OhTkVKdMWoYlEemb4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-11T08:14:35Z","article","At the status docket for State v. Lamar Waters, defense counsel reported the complainant had requested non‑prosecution and that an offer was on the table. Counsel said a motion to modify bond conditions had been filed but \"it wasn't accepted for some reason\" and the court has not yet set a hearing on that motion. The judge instructed counsel to contact the court coordinator, Sarah, for a hearing date once the motion is filed and accepted. The prosecutor asked defense counsel to email a courtesy copy of the offer.

Why it matters: A court's acceptance of a bond‑modification filing is a threshold step to secure a hearing and resolve pretrial conditions that can affect a defendant's liberty pending the case. The complainant's request for non‑prosecution and the presence of an offer could affect whether the state pursues charges.

Courtroom details: Defense counsel said, \"It was filed, but it wasn't accepted for some reason. But it's going it's coming.\" The prosecutor said, \"There is an offer on this file, and I would just ask if mister Hecker can, email me a courtesy copy of that as well.\" The judge responded, \"Contact Sarah for a date on that motion once you get it filed.\" No formal ruling was entered on bond conditions or on the offer during the hearing; the defendant was released from the docket after the update.

Ending: The court left scheduling of the bond‑modification hearing to counsel once the filing is accepted and to the court coordinator for docketing; the parties will return on the next status date.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Christopher Morales","oneSentenceSummary","In State v. Lamar Waters defense counsel said a motion to modify bond conditions was filed but was not accepted into the record; the prosecutor requested a courtesy copy of an offer and the judge told counsel to contact the court coordinator for a hearing date once the motion is accepted.","taxTitle","Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 1, Texas Courts, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66315,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6174375,"Defense says video evidence not accessible; prosecutor says it was shared",35,179270,214890,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c&start=179&end=214","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c/thumbnail_179270.jpg","/articles/6174375/Texas/Defense-says-video-evidence-not-accessible-prosecutor-says-it-was-shared","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174375-101bf97ebda35be11eab31e58b45716c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928315&Signature=c0b2VOuoX7kgDKUECgr~hZp3mJkQkqn9x0m2N~-67G5DnPz-THxaWzZL8X4fK6TA-2Dammaksjvzw7mA1eV45QExO7r4vfMtttgJ2tTi~OEpt77HLIaS-p41Ap8xMxD8RoLfxPAoo-Y~lTvBc6T~SA8DjDA~7OJPj3XfVDftejwL3cnCVR0LpSBDW~4iWl-YLn5brBlt3VbtlSKopHpwGweCo6Fz15I3j75A70-2BASephBY623kYJ1WJwI7d2X-1BYOz2j1yYk9VkDvZ3F~FkZ4s9D59LKhJNet7wSZq24IBJ5EY8P5rO39~N6HHxdERJoQbHIWRxfTLNMxa4tbQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","In the docket for Texas v. Mike Montalo III, defense counsel told the judge that \"Discovery has been shared, judge, and we have reviewed all of the the paper discovery. I have not seen the video.\" The prosecutor responded that the office believed it had shared the video in June but the defense could not access it; the prosecutor then reshared the file and the parties reported an offer had been received that day. The judge said there was another virtual status scheduled in September.

Why it matters: Access to video evidence bears directly on defense review and the timing of plea negotiations and pretrial motions. Defense counsel said they had reviewed paper discovery but lacked access to the video until it was reshared during the hearing.

Courtroom details: Defense counsel reported they \"couldn't see\" the video and asked about access; the prosecutor said they thought the material had been shared previously and reshared it in court. The judge told counsel to contact the court coordinator, Sarah, for a plea docket date if needed. A virtual status conference remains scheduled for September.

Ending: No formal ruling was made on discovery; counsel reported an offer had been made and the parties will return at the next status date to report further progress.","In State v. Mike Montalo III counsel told the court paper discovery was reviewed but the defense could not access video evidence the prosecutor said had been shared in June; a virtual status was set for September.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6174381,"TRAS backlog leaves PTI eligibility unresolved; judge asks for date by Sept. 4",57,846490,904370,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c&start=846&end=904","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5370500-f1dbe8b3e09061636f98b4e1868be05c/thumbnail_846490.jpg","/articles/6174381/Texas/TRAS-backlog-leaves-PTI-eligibility-unresolved-judge-asks-for-date-by-Sept-4","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174381-6f5447fc41b0656898d692882967ad5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928315&Signature=lCf8j1CIWwDUYQxKmPcocbIqtDSYJq9Vz~YuOfLYEekBXmlO8e01z0XnSW4G8T69DXJSM55aMnNQHhA3jcn2BNEOwFx7ZCBG5ltnJEZvIClGJW~xMRwHa9swzZ6gyeOoYYsvlgo~Qf95UF7V23xniVWZlR~mMG6NEQyY2EpLOSE7BCFUwSJCSyqqOr9BphXP7bhSpeGcRuIGm16v9U73PJd8QJL~ovQexLJVfUCEj7aD11dYZonv4enTXCM6E1FR4D8bibPV0zw4LnyN3azny8GsKdnxXI7go6NAgj5dVVlyNNm-bzxgZM8J01f1gmkwN6NzRnGRlh4Zi0UfqN32OA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a status docket hearing, the court was told that delays in scheduling TRAS (treatment and risk assessment services) appointments are delaying prosecutors' decisions on defendants' eligibility for pretrial intervention programs. Defense attorney Segura said they were \"waiting for Miss Bijou to get back to us with a date for the TRAS.\" The prosecutor told the judge that, after recent coordination meetings, \"dates are as far out as mid August.\" The judge asked counsel to secure a TRAS date by the next setting on 09/04.

Why it matters: PTI eligibility depends on TRAS results; without a scheduled assessment, prosecutors said they could not make final diversion decisions. Defense attorneys said the delay has left several clients unable to confirm diversion or plea options before upcoming pretrial dates.

Courtroom details: Segura told the judge he had been trying about two weeks to secure the TRAS appointment. The prosecutor said the office had discussed a backlog at a meeting several weeks earlier and acknowledged available dates remain limited. The judge said, \"Well, hopefully, your client has a date for a TRAS at least by the next setting on 09/04.\" No formal order was entered; the court directed defense counsel to contact the TRAS coordinator and to report progress at the September setting.

Context and next steps: The judge set the next status setting for 09/04 and asked counsel to confirm TRAS scheduling before that date. The prosecutor said the office would withhold a final PTI eligibility decision until it received the TRAS results.","Defense attorneys and the prosecutor told the court that delays in scheduling TRAS assessments have pushed decisions on pretrial intervention (PTI) programs past upcoming settings; the prosecutor said TRAS dates were as far out as mid‑August.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bond‑modification motion listed as filed but not accepted; hearing pending in Waters case

Defense says video evidence not accessible; prosecutor says it was shared

TRAS backlog leaves PTI eligibility unresolved; judge asks for date by Sept. 4