Thursday, February 12, 2009

Who said what again?

I can't remember who the jackass was who said that I was full of it when I said that child molesting ex-cops get preferential bail treatment, but they basically said I had no idea what I was talking about. Well, here you go.

Sure, Castleberry ran. So if that's the reason, why not deny bail altogether? They could have, hell they tracked this guy across the globe and know he's a threat. And of course he did more of what the former cop is accused of doing, but to what degree are we OK with putting accused pedophiles back on the street? In the case of the ex-cop, that's the same street his victim lives on, from what I remember.

While they didn't deny bail, this non-cop is (rightfully) unable to meet what bail has been set. I hope they put him in with everyone else to wait out his trial, and it looks like he's guilty as charged. So I'm glad he won't be out on bond. But I don't think an ex-cop should get easier treatment.

16 comments:

Sam said...

You are correct of course. In a matter such as this the Court could easily have justified a denial of bail based on the fact that he is a flight-risk. He already fled in the past why give him an opportunity to flee again.

Mark Bennett said...

No, actually the Court could not have justified a denial of bail. RTFM -- in this case, the Texas Constitution. Not only is he entitled to bail, but he's entitled to "reasonable" bail.

YANACL, and it shows.

Rage Judicata said...

I never claimed to be one.

But what is reasonable in the case where a known flight risk could take off for good next time? What if it was Ken Lay (who may as well stop faking his death now that his conviction will stand even post humously), or someone else with the millions of dollars set as bail in this case?

Is there never a case where bail could be denied in Texas? Come on, this is TEXAS. We argued to the US Supreme Court that it was reasonable to execute a person who is actually innocent. You're saying that every defendant in every case is entitled to bail and that there is no instance where it can be denied?

Honest question here.

Mark Bennett said...

All is answered in the link I provided to the Texas Constitution.

Rage Judicata said...

Yeah, not really. 11b and 11c give other reasons bail can be denied, specifically in family violence and non-capital crimes against children. You cited 11a, which is the most restrictive of the three and requires previous convictions, whereas the two I cite do not. While I understand the argument that "hey judge, you can't deny his bail because he has no previous convictions," the fact is that that's a losing argument because there are easier avenues for the state to deny bail.

If you ever need help with that criminal law thing, just holler.

Mark Bennett said...

Yeah, not so much. 11b requires a violation of bail in the case, and 11c requires a violation of a MOEP in a family law case (as well as enabling legislation).

I'll be sure to keep you on speed dial.

Rage Judicata said...

Either of which could have happened, depending on the particular facts. Admittedly, I don't know all of the facts of his case, but he had already been charged when he fled and may have been on bail and some of his victims were related to him, so there may have been some sort of order out there. In any event, both scenarios are more likely than your 11a scenario, which you implied was the only way bail could be outright denied.

Sounds good. I prefer the Schobak Signal, just for the record. It's like the Bat Signal, but with a bowling pin.

Roxy said...

FYI Mark:11c doesn't need enabling legislation - it already has it.
HJR 6 - now Art. I, §11c - passed along with HB 3692 (80th RS) which is now Penal Code §25.07. And the MOEP doesn't have to be in a family law - as in civil case. It just has to involve an act of family violence if committed while on bond.

Mark Bennett said...

I don't see that PC 25.07 has any language enabling denial of bond. That language would fit better in the CCP; maybe it's there.

I guess I'd better add, though, for the sake of the completeness of this discussion, that a person can be denied bail for a capital offense where the proof is evident (art 1 sec 11), or held without bond after he's been convicted too.

In any case, pretrial bond is really really hard to deny in Texas. Even where the constitution allows denial of bail, the State usually screws up the procedure.

rage said...

In any case, pretrial bond is really really hard to deny in Texas.

Now that would have foreclosed any pissing match.

Even where the constitution allows denial of bail, the State usually screws up the procedure.

And that I can see happening.

Anonymous said...

Or, if you are a pissed off judge in Galveston County, you just set the bail at a billion dollars and make the suspect go to the appeals court.

Arthur Seaton said...

"I hope they put him in with everyone else to wait out his trial, and it looks like he's guilty as charged."

In other words, the due process that you accuse the DA's office and police of violating just for fun and at every turn is meaningless when you want it be.

You really are a sack of crap.

Rage Judicata said...

No Arthur, what I'm saying is that they have this guy dead to rights, and you won't have to conceal evidence like you usually do in order to get a conviction.

Maybe they'll actually let you handle this one.

I bet you plead the formed deputy to a misdemeanor. Maybe you should go after the victim like in Galveston?

This one was under ten, I bet you could actually win that cross examination and get a conviction.

Arthur Seaton said...

Maybe you could even get a conviction--but oh wait, you don't do criminal law. I guess I sometimes forget since you seem to know so, so very much about it.

Rage Judicata said...

Oh, no! You said I don't practice criminal law for the fiftieth time! Whatever shall I do?

How about point out that you still have yet to respond to any substantive point, and continue to think that the system is as good as it can be, despite yet another wrongful conviction being exposed this week--again at the hands of a prosecutor who intentionally hid exculpatory evidence.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, it tells me you probably do the same thing.

You're a broken record Seaton, get a new schtick.

Arthur Seaton said...

"You're a broken record Seaton, get a new schtick."

LOL. Funniest thing you've ever said. Unintentional, of course, but funny.