CASE UPDATE July 6, 2017

UPDATE July 6, 2017 Brent A. Christensen Detention/Bail Hearing: • At the Defendant’s bail hearing his Attorneys argued that he should be released on bail for the following reasons: o Attorneys had limited access to Defendant. Defendant is being held at Macon County Jail, and Attorneys are not able to call him via telephone. Instead, Attorneys have to drive to the jail physically, an hour away from their office, just to talk to Defendant about the case. They argued he should be out on jail so they could have more access to him. o Defendant has family in the area o Defendant has no prior criminal history o Defendant is not a flight risk • The government argued the following in support of their position that Defendant should not be released on bail: o There is strong evidence, including an audio recording of the Defendant during his interview with the police where Defendant admits that he had an altercation with the victim in the car and that he physically hit the victim. Since evidence is so strong, he is a flight risk. o Also, the fact that the victim is still missing supports their position that the Defendant should not be released. • The Judge agreed with the prosecution saying that Mr. Christiansen should not be released on bail, because the weight of the evidence indicates that he is a flight risk. Judge ordered him detained pending trial. Miscellaneous Points: • The next hearing will be held on July 14th, it is a preliminary hearing. The Judge did not mention anything about the grand jury. • Representatives from the University of Illinois were present, they supported the contention that there is more to the case than just a kidnapping. This thought seemed to be a general consensus. • Although Steven was seated in the overflow room and could not see the Defendant, he did see a sketch which showed that the Defendant was unshaven. Further, Steven spoke with a reporter who had seen the Defendant and remarked that he looked “scary,” due to his “scruffy” hair and facial hair. 章瑩穎案7月5號開庭紀實：不准保釋！延庭至7月14號 1、嫌犯Brent Christiansen的辯護律師認為，顯然應該被釋放，理由如下： a.律師與嫌犯之間溝通渠道不順暢。因嫌犯被關押在Macon縣的監獄裡，律師沒有辦法打電話給他，每次會面律師必須開一個小時的車去監獄。因此嫌犯的律師要求釋放嫌犯，這樣溝通起來更順暢。 b.嫌犯的家就住在同一區域 c.嫌犯之前沒有犯罪記錄 d.嫌犯沒有逃走的風險 2、檢方認為，嫌犯不該以保釋金的方式釋放，理由如下： a.有很強的證據（包括警察在問訊嫌犯時的錄音資料）表明，嫌犯承認在車裡與受害人張瑩穎有過爭執，為此嫌犯動手打了受害人張瑩穎。由於證據如此強有力，因此嫌犯存在逃跑的風險。 b.而且，因為受害人目前仍然處於失踪狀態，因此不能釋放嫌犯。 3、法官同意檢方意見，認為嫌犯有可能逃走，因此不予釋放。法官命令繼續羈押嫌犯，以待審判。 4、其它開庭內容 a.下次開庭為7月14日，是為預審開庭。 b.伊利諾伊大學的代表參加了庭審現場，他們也認為，本案絕非只是綁架這麼簡單，這已是共識。 c.現場一位親眼見到嫌犯的記者向劉龍珠律師團隊的工作人員表示：嫌犯看上去非常可怕，頭髮髒亂。