A Crowd, a Courtroom, and a Question of Intent: Inside the Bond Hearing of Mahendra “Mick” Patel

More than 150 supporters crowded into a jury assembly room, with others joining by Zoom, as Mahendra “Mick” Patel—an 86-year-old local resident described by many as a gentle and sociable grandfather—appeared in court for a bond hearing that had quickly grown into one of the county’s most watched cases of 2025. The allegation against him was severe: attempted kidnapping of a child inside a Walmart. But as the hearing unfolded, defense attorneys argued forcefully that the accusation was built not on evidence, but on a misunderstanding magnified by fear, confusion, and social media.

Patel had been arrested on March 21 after a woman, Caroline Miller, reported to police that he had grabbed her child and attempted to pull the child away from her inside a Walmart store three days earlier. The initial charge was kidnapping—a grave allegation that led to Patel being denied bond at his first appearance. When the case was later indicted on April 3, the charges were reduced to attempted kidnapping and misdemeanor assault and battery.

Defense attorney Ashley Merchant began the hearing by underscoring what she later called the most important fact in the entire case: the existence of surveillance video. “Luckily we have video,” she told the judge. “And the video couldn’t be clearer—Mr. Patel did not try to kidnap this child.”

What followed was one of the most detailed walkthroughs of store surveillance footage ever presented at a bond hearing. The defense outlined Patel’s movements through Walmart almost minute by minute, beginning at 8:17 a.m., when he entered the store to buy a specific type of rapid-release Tylenol for his elderly mother, who suffers from osteoarthritis. In fact, Patel had been texting with his daughter during his search, receiving photos of the medication he needed to locate.

At 8:21 a.m., Patel first encountered Miller, who was riding a motorized scooter with her young child on her lap and another at her feet. Miller had publicly admitted she was not disabled but allowed her child to ride the mobility cart “for fun.” Merchant described the interaction as brief and benign: Patel asked for help locating the Tylenol, Miller tried to point toward an aisle, and Patel leaned in—hands visible, movements deliberate—appearing, as one witness later said, “like a father lifting a child.”

Miller would later describe a “tug-of-war” lasting ten seconds. But the video, Merchant argued, told another story entirely: five seconds of interaction, Patel leaning forward, Miller leaning back, Patel instantly withdrawing and putting his hands back into his pockets.

“Less than five seconds,” Merchant emphasized. “That is the entire alleged ‘attempted kidnapping.’”

From there, the footage showed Patel calmly continuing to search for the medication, speaking to employees and even passing Miller multiple times. At one point, after finally securing the Tylenol with an employee’s help, Patel held the bottle up to Miller with a smile—she responded with a thumbs-up.

Meanwhile, the video also revealed that Miller accidentally struck an endcap with her scooter, backed into a display case, and then, moments later, ran over her own child’s foot as the child fell from the cart. A nearby witness, a man in an orange shirt named Mr. Leva, intervened to help the child. Leva—identified on the warrant as a witness—later told investigators that if he had seen any attempt by Patel to abduct a child, he would have stepped in immediately. He saw none.

Miller did not call police for 30 minutes. She first approached a Walmart employee, who, according to defense interviews, had to persuade her to contact authorities. During that half hour, Patel remained inside the store, paid for his items with his debit card, chatted with employees at the exit, and leisurely walked out—behavior that the defense argued is inconsistent with someone fleeing after a felony.

As the video played in court, the prosecutor objected, suggesting that the footage was irrelevant to a bond decision. The judge disagreed. “I can’t imagine anything more relevant,” Merchant argued, “than a video of the alleged incident when you are determining bond.”

The judge allowed the video.

From there, Merchant pressed the core legal standard: bond is determined by factors such as danger to the community and risk of flight. According to the defense, the video demonstrated Patel posed neither. He made no threatening movements, offered no violence, and showed no behavior consistent with an attempted abduction. And he certainly had not fled the store—staying inside for eight minutes after the alleged incident, talking with multiple employees.

By the end of the hearing, the courtroom atmosphere—crowded, tense, and closely observing—reflected a community wrestling with a troubling question: Was this a crime, or a tragic misunderstanding inflated into a criminal case?

What the judge ultimately decides will determine not only Patel’s immediate future but also how the justice system interprets fear, perception, and intent in an era when a brief, misconstrued interaction can escalate into a life-altering accusation.