But Shellie offered to get her brother-in-law on the phone at the original bail hearing to tell the court exactly how much money was in the PayPal account, a fact that the prosecution conveniently left out of their bail revocation motion. I don't believe that it was an innocent mistake on the prosecution's part. Neither the court, nor the prosecution took her up on that offer.
If I was Shellie, I wouldn't have given an estimate either, since the amount changed daily.
The state put that part of the bail hearing in the record, with the motion to revoke bail. Pages 4 & 5 of the 5 page excerpt; pages 26 and 27 of the official transcript have that offer by Shellie.
I agree, that offer makes it harder to reach a finding that Shellie was hiding anything. She has a good argument that she assumed the court wanted an exact amount (say within a hundred or a thousand dollars), and she didn't have it - but she knew who could get it, and would get it on request.
-- If I was Shellie, I wouldn't have given an estimate either, since the amount changed daily. --
She could have said she didn't know, and couldn't even estimate the current amount, but last she looked it was blah blah dollars. I know she wasn't asked that, but if she gave an answer like that, she couldn't be accused of hiding anything.
I don't know that I would have done any different from what Shellie did, under the circumstances. But she has this Q&A to explain, too:
Q: And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money. Is that correct?
A: To my knowledge, that's correct.