Quick Take
A judge on Monday set $100,000 bail for Pescavore founder Clarice Owens, who has been held in jail since December on a felony stalking charge and dozens of misdemeanors tied to alleged harassment and restraining order violations. The decision drew concern from several alleged victims who gathered in court and said they fear Owens could target them again if she’s released.
Eight people targeted by Pescavore founder Clarice Owens gathered in a courtroom on Monday morning as a judge set bail terms for the Santa Cruz businesswoman. Owens has been held in custody without bail since Dec. 19 for violating several protective orders and because she didn’t appear for a pre-trial appointment.
Owens is scheduled to appear before a jury on April 6 to answer to one charge of felony stalking and 34 misdemeanors for violating protective orders granted to neighbors, former investors in her company and industry colleagues, who say that Owens harassed and threatened them online for months or, in some cases, years.
Public defender Kristyn Skelly, Owens’ legal counsel, argued that holding Owens in jail without bail was unlawful, since her charges aren’t capital crimes. She pointed out that Owens doesn’t have any prior charges, and that most of the charges are for communications that occurred electronically, said Skelly, with no instances of physical violence.
Owens wouldn’t be able to return home since it’s in close proximity to a protected neighbor, but Skelly and Owens identified an alternative residence where she could live. Skelly added that Owens’ imprisonment made child care difficult for her 8-year-old son. Owens’ husband travels frequently for work, and so the child is often cared for by Owens’ 77-year-old mother, who is also responsible for another family member, who has a disability.
When Judge Denine Guy released Owens in early December, Owens violated every order placed on her “within a day,” said Peter Esho, the assistant Santa Cruz County district attorney handling the case against Owens. “This case has ballooned into what it is today because Ms. Owens can’t follow court orders.”
During other times that Owens was released from custody after being arrested, she resumed prohibited behaviors such as monitoring protected parties through six surveillance cameras around her home, or contacting them by email or text messages.
“In jail calls, she continues to tell her husband not to remove the cameras,” said Esho. “The only peace these victims get is when she can’t violate the orders” because she’s in jail.
Additionally, Esho pointed out that calls to the Santa Cruz Police Department related to Owens’ behavior were so numerous that it could pose a public safety concern because of strain on the department should she be released.
Bail was set at $100,000 for the most significant charge against Owens, and $25,000 each for two other misdemeanor charges. She cannot return to her home on Bay Street in Santa Cruz and must reside somewhere else.
Outside the courtroom, several people with active restraining orders against Owens appeared frustrated by the decision and said they were fearful of being targeted by Owens if she’s released.
One woman, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy, said Skelly minimized the effect Owens’ harassment and threats have had on victims. “The public defender made it seem like it wasn’t as big of a deal as what we’re living with and the terror [Owens] has imposed on so many people,” she said.
Another person, who also wished to remain anonymous, said she worried that Owens might retaliate against her for appearing in court. “I feel like her seeing that I was here is going to make me even more of a target,” the victim said. “But we wanted the judge to see the faces, and that these are real people, not just neighbors.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.