Bond Hearings: Fowlkes Bond Agreed at $150K, Goering Bond Reserved

Section I: Summary

Date of proceedings: June 11, 2026
Court: 413th Judicial District Court of Texas, Johnson County
Judge: Hon. William C. Bosworth Jr.
Defendants present: Lucy Fowlkes (she/her); Janette Goering (she/her)
Parties: The State (three prosecutors at counsel table); defense counsel for each defendant (one attorney at the defense table during Goering’s hearing — see note on attorney names below)
Type of proceeding: Joint session — Fowlkes plea and agreed bond reduction, followed by a contested bond hearing for Goering
Case numbers: Fowlkes — DC-F202600234; Goering — DC-F202501161

Excerpt

At a joint session before Judge Bosworth, Lucy Fowlkes pleaded not guilty and the court approved an agreed reduction of her bond to $150,000, while a contested bond hearing for co-defendant Janette Goering — the State asking $500,000 and the defense $75,000 — ended with the judge reserving his decision pending review of a court of appeals ruling, promising an answer by the end of the day.

Key Takeaways

Lucy Fowlkes pleaded NOT GUILTY and the judge approved an agreed bond reduction to $150,000 (covering two counts). Her attorney asked to address bond conditions at a later hearing if she is able to post bond.
Janette Goering’s bond hearing was contested: defense sought $75,000, the State recommended $500,000.
The defense leaned on a court of appeals ruling that Goering was “not accused of being part of” the underlying events / not part of the group that helped conceal Benjamin Song; the judge questioned how the appeals court could assess evidence it had not fully seen.
Judge Bosworth reserved his ruling on Goering’s bond to review the court of appeals decision and the exhibits, and said he would answer by the end of the day.
Exhibits from Goering’s first bond hearing were missing from the court’s file; the court reporter suggested they might be with the appeals court, and the judge paused to locate them.

Narrative summary

Lucy Fowlkes — plea and agreed bond

After the court was called to order, the prosecution announced Fowlkes’s matter (“I have Mr. Folkes,” as a note-taker recorded the prosecutor; the defendant’s preferred name is Lucy Fowlkes). The judge confirmed counsel had had a chance to review.

Fowlkes entered a plea of not guilty. Counsel then presented a motion to reduce bond to $150,000, which had been worked out as an agreement subject to the judge’s approval. The judge approved the agreement. Defense counsel asked to discuss bond conditions at a separate hearing if Fowlkes is able to make bond. One note-taker recorded the agreed figure tied to two counts.

A person recorded as “Halleran” was noted as a no-show; the notes do not make clear who this is.

Janette Goering — contested bond hearing

The bulk of the session was a contested bond hearing for Janette Goering.

Defense argument. The defense asked the court to set bond at $75,000, relying on findings from the court of appeals, which it characterized as concluding that Goering was not actively involved in hiding Benjamin Song and not accused of being part of the underlying group/attack. The defense re-offered the exhibits from the first bond hearing:

Exhibits 1–14: character letters.
Exhibit 17: a Johnson County bail “dashboard” screenshot regarding Fowlkes — reflecting bail reduced to $150,000 for two counts, tied to arrests from a “July 4 event.”
Exhibit 18: a spreadsheet of OCA (court administration) data on related individuals and their bail amounts, highlighting those set below a threshold — offered to compare Goering’s situation to other defendants.
Exhibit 19: a text thread produced in discovery in which people discuss a “gear check” (dated around July 3). The defense emphasized that Goering — and her “monikers” — do not appear in the thread, arguing she was not present.

The defense noted that at a prior hearing, a witness (“Reilly”) testimony was cited as placing Goering at the gear check, but argued the text thread does not include her. The defense also stated that at the federal trial, the cooperating witness who attended the gear check did not say Janette was there. The defense then rested.

A documentary problem surfaced: the court did not have the exhibits from Goering’s first hearing in its file for this hearing. The court reporter suggested they might be with the appeals court, and the judge took a few minutes to try to locate the files.

State’s argument. The prosecution relied on evidence from the first hearing, principally the warrant, arguing:

The warrant indicates Song’s Faraday bag came from Goering, and that she was present at the gear check.
She arrived in Johnson County with a group whose goal was to aid Ben Song.
As to the court of appeals statement that she “was not part of the group that helped to conceal Song’s presence,” the State argued that not being accused of something does not mean she was not involved, and that the appeals court had not weighed all of the evidence.
Regarding Exhibit 18 (the comparative bail spreadsheet), the State argued each defendant and each agreement is unique and bond should reflect that individual’s specific involvement, objecting to treating Goering the same as others.
The State indicated it may bring additional charges and that her “actual role” remains to be determined.
The State recommended a $500,000 bond.

Defense rebuttal. The defense pointed to the indictment — which it said accuses Goering of providing the means of avoiding arrest and specifies July 5 — and argued that, after two hearings, the State has presented no evidence that she committed a crime. Recurring themes: “mere presence alone does not mean someone committed a crime,” and “mere suspicion.” The defense offered an innocent explanation for her presence — that she may have been there to provide emotional support for grieving friends and family of those who had been arrested — and cited the first-hearing transcript (around p. 98), where the witness “Reilly” was quoted as saying he could not speak to her intentions (“I don’t know, can’t say her intentions”).

Ruling. Judge Bosworth said he would take time to review the court of appeals ruling and the evidence/exhibits and would provide an answer by the end of the day. No bond amount for Goering had been set as of these notes.

Next court action

Goering bond decision: expected by end of day, June 11, 2026 (judge reserved ruling).
Fowlkes: bond agreed at $150,000; defense anticipates a later hearing on bond conditions if she posts bond.

Incidents and atmosphere

The courtroom was divided, with family and spectators directed to the left side and the defendants seated on the right.
An officer announced that anyone chewing gum had to leave to spit it out.
Around 2:17 p.m., attorneys gave quotes to a KERA reporter (recorded as “Penelope”), including a characterization that under the State’s theory, ordinary acts of court support — “give a hug, pay for a meal” — could expose someone to a terrorism charge.

Note-taker discrepancies and uncertainties

Fowlkes bond figure: two note-takers recorded $150,000 (one with a “✓”); a third recorded a “$50,000 agreement” at 1:51 p.m. but elsewhere noted “$150,000 for 2 counts.” Treated here as $150,000; confirm against the order.
Goering’s defense attorney name: recorded variously as “Hoffman” (offering exhibits) and “Sellers” — these are the names of two of her attorneys from Sellers Trial Law
“Halleran — No show”: role unclear from the notes.
Name spelling: “Goering” given name appears as both “Janette” and “Jeanette” across note-takers; “Janette” is the correct spelling. “Fowlkes” was written “Folkes” by note-takers.
“Ward” (1:51 entry): unclear whether a name or a misreading; not relied upon above.

Section 2: Full Notes

Court Notes — ES — 2026-06-11

June 11, 2026 @ 413th Judicial District Court of TX [margin note: are]
Judge William C. Bosworth Jr.

Courtroom divided into 2 sides. Family + spectators directed to sit on the left side. Lucy is in the front row on the right side. Janette is in row 3 with her lawyer. 3 people at the prosecutor’s table. One person at the defense’s table. Defense lawyer + prosecutor whisper to have a few semi-private conversations. With their backs to the audience. When not whispering they had a few nonchalant conversations across the courtroom involving the 3 prosecutor + 1 defense.

“If anyone is chewing gum, you have to go spit it out,” an officer shouts.

ALL RISE

“I have Mr. Folkes” – Prosecutor
J: Have you had a chance to review

Enters plea of Not Guilty
Submitted motion to reduce bond to $150,000 pending judge approve [margin note: judge approve]
Judge approves agreement
Attorney would like to discuss bond conditions at a hearing if they can make bond

Halleran – No show

Janette Goering

Bond hearing

Defense:
Bond amount proposed at $75,000 given the findings of the court of appeals

Cont

J: How would Court of appeals know the evidence? They did not
Def L: she was not accused of participating in hinding Benjamin Song

Defense offers exhibits character letters 1-14. 17, 18, 19

Reminds Judge of Folkes charges + conditions + bail (17)
Spreadsheet of Bail amounts of other defendants (18)
Text thread about gear check – Janette is not included, she was not present (19)

Judge does not know where exhibits from 1st hearing are
Defense offers court reporters documentation
Judge takes a few minutes to locate files

Defense adds – the cooperating witness at the federal trial did not say that Janette was there

Defense rests

State raises evidence previously presented at 1st hearing

warrant addressing
a votes statement from the court of appeals
“she was not part of the group that help to conceal Songs presence”
presence at gear check, giving Song a Faraday bag is noted in the warrant
She did arrive in Joco w/ group who’s goal was to aid Ben Song
Maybe will raise additional charges
she’s not being accused of it but that does not mean that she was not involved
Re: Defense Exhibit 18 – Each defendant + each agreement is unique. His situation is based on his specific involvement
No new evidence presented
DA/Prosecution recommends a 500,000 bond

Defense raises indictment

Does not show she was actively there for the purpose of aiding Song
” ” from p.98 – she may have been there to aid grieving friends + family members
mere suspicion + mere presence
After 2 hearings, have presented no evidence

Judge will take time to review court of appeals ruling + evidence

Court Notes — EW — 2026-06-11

Fowlkes

Bond $150K ✓

Jeanette

Court of appeals lower bond
wholly unprecedented

Δ request $75K

court of appeals said she is
not accused of being part of
attack

Hoffman offer ex 17, 18, 19 — spreadsheet of
bail amounts for others
→ gear check
text thread

Judge doesn’t know
where exhibits from last
hearing are.
Court reporter suggests they
could be with appeals

at fed trial, coop. witness
who attended gear check
did not say Janette was
there.

P: warrant
could be misinterpretation
but the warrant confirms
Song faraday bag came from her
Says appeals means she hasn’t
been charged with anything
subsequent. Her car was
in Johnson Co & she was in
JoCo with those conv. helping
Song.
Fowlkes involvement was
different
Sug $500K bond

Δ: Indictment specifies
July 5th. Appeal says

there is no evidence she was
there to aid Song.
Mere presence alone does not
mean someone committed a
crime. She was there providing
emotional support for friends
& family of those who had
been arrested.

Review answer 5

Court Notes — IP — 2026-06-11

Lucy, Janette hearing

estimate 8 people fit on one bench, left side 6 benches → 4 people
right side bench, 6 benches

1:51 · Ward present $50,000 agreement w/ π to J

π bond conditions ?
apellate truly unnecessary, outside of grounds
Δ proposed $75,000 to appeals in briefing, but they set it
appeals said Goering not actively involved in hiding Song
J how could appeals know? they didn’t get all evidence
Δ its time for π to present best evidence
J not time prove beyond reasonable doubt
Δ not accused in part of group accused in hiding Song
Δ presents 17,18,19 exhibit s re-offer everything from previous hearing
17 JoCo screen for Fowlkes $mil → 150,000 for 2 counts [margin note: bail dashboard arrested from Jul 4 event]
18 spreadsheet OCA data related individuals & bail
amounts s highlight those below 5mil
19 text in discovery where people discuss gear check Jul
1. @ hearing Reilly testified witness put Goering at gear check
  text thread doesn’t include Janette or her “monikers”
  Δ clear she wasn’t there
1 – 14 prior exhibits were character letters
court doesn’t have exhibits from previous hearing in this hearing files
court needs to locate them
J whats explanation exhibit 18?
J anything else to add?
Δ fed trial 1 cooperating witness who attended gear check didn’t say

π Staten

Janette was there
2:04 · 1st hearing = warrant exhibit
π maybe misinterpretation
“Δ said Janette not actively help conceal → helping Song”
π disagree because
π presence at gear check
π text messages represented today = just because not
in text thread
maybe she hasn’t been actively charged but she still
might have helped somehow (appeals didn’t weigh that)
saying [?] 17 etc Janette assist on Jul 5
her actual role to be determined
exh. 18 each defendant unique reflective of involvement
in case, π ignores uniqueness individual involvement
to say she deserves same bond as others
J position on bottom bail?
Δ — 500,000
Δ indictment says she’s accused providing means avoiding arrest
appeals saying Δ hasn’t presented evidence saying she committed crime
Δ 1st hearing p. 98 for all you know court support. Reilly “I
don’t know, can’t say her intentions [margin note: Reilly just had]
“mere suspicion”
“mere presence alone does not mean someone committed crime”
π if providing support, that includes Song [margin note: friends]
J will review exhibits s appeal doc again
answer by end of day
2:17 · lawyers gave quotes to KERA Penelope
ex. if you come do court support give a hug, pay for meal
you can be charged for terrorism.

Support the Prairieland Defendants