Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
48 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

With a bond reduction of this amount, does this mean the judge thinks the DA's case isn't as strong as when the bond was set?

No, not necessarily.

Posted
1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

With a bond reduction of this amount, does this mean the judge thinks the DA's case isn't as strong as when the bond was set?

Probably not.  More likely the judge is does not believe Anthony is a flight risk or a serious, immediate threat to others.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Jerry Callo said:

Probably not.  More likely the judge is does not believe Anthony is a flight risk or a serious, immediate threat to others.

This.  Those are the most relevant criteria for setting a bond.  A bond is not to punish the guilty, because - and this is really important - the accused in such cases has not been adjudicated guilty of the crime charged, and often never IS so adjudicated.

Bonds are to protect against flight and avoiding trial, and to protect the public if the person represents an immediate and serious threat to others.  As both risks seem on the low end in this case, a bond reduction is not nonsensical.

The amount of his bond will not have any bearing on his final adjudication, any finding of guilt, or any sentence.  That is, if he was gonna be found guilty and sentenced to 30 years, that was going to happen regardless of the amount of his bond.  Likewise, if he was going to be found not guilty by reason of self-defense, that was also going to happen regardless to the amount of his bond.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

Serious question re bond and flight risk, doesn't the strength of the state's case play into calculating the risk of flight?  If I'm about to go to trial facing 20 plus years and my chances of being found not guilty are miniscule, you better believe I'm researching countries with no extradition and how to get to them.

Posted
1 hour ago, Not a cat said:

Serious question re bond and flight risk, doesn't the strength of the state's case play into calculating the risk of flight?  If I'm about to go to trial facing 20 plus years and my chances of being found not guilty are miniscule, you better believe I'm researching countries with no extradition and how to get to them.

And not to mention, with the GoFundme money, now has the means to do this. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Hate said:

I think that by murdering someone you’ve already proven you are a danger to society. 

Hey, he was just having a bad day. It's not like he's gonna keep wandering around track meets looking for new people to stab. I mean he probably won't.

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Hate said:

He told the police he did it. 

Irrelevant. He hasn't been found guilty. And he also told the police it was self defense and expressed concern for the victim, which at least partially tracks from eye witness accounts that he was pushed prior the stabbing. This is a tragic case. He will likely go to jail for a long a time. But nothing here justifies up rooting our most sacred legal principle. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
On 4/10/2025 at 11:39 PM, ztejas said:

My worst was my DUI where I sat in a cell with the lights on for 24 hours without any communication or knowing what the fuck was going on on the outside. (I'm sure other posters here have had similar experiences)

I have had guys say that county isn't always that bad. I think once you know what you're in for and when you're getting out you can kind of adapt.

That said - I think anything beyond 3-6 months in a decent situation is pretty dehumanizing and not something I'd ever like to experience. 

I once did a two hour stretch in a Mexican jail - was arrested in a cantina for being with a group of fellow students who started a big fight over a couple of hookers with a rival school’s students.
I swear, I never crawled out of the booth to get involved in the ruckus, and was an innocent bystander who was swept up with the rioting mob. 

At least I was able to “bail” myself out of the drunk tank with a fifty Peso ($4) bill.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I once did a two hour stretch in a Mexican jail - was arrested in a cantina for being with a group of fellow students who started a big fight over a couple of hookers with a rival school’s students.
I swear, I never crawled out of the booth to get involved in the ruckus, and was an innocent bystander who was swept up with the rioting mob. 

At least I was able to “bail” myself out of the drunk tank with a fifty Peso ($4) bill.

I once paid a Costa Rican cop $20 to get out of a traffic violation, so this hits close to home. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Hate said:

Jesus Christ yall are beating. I never said he should not be given a fair trial. I replied to someone that suggested the lowered bond would indicate he was not a danger to society. I replied that the fact that he had murdered someone would indicate he is a danger to society. Someone then suggested that I was suggesting he was guilty until proven innocent to which I replied the suspect had told the police that he was not alleged to have done it but that he in fact did actually do it. Never did I suggest that he not be given a trial or have any of his legal rights infringed upon. You people look for any slight nuance in a post that you can use to wow everyone with your enlightenment. Fuck off.  

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

If more men could do this, there'd be a lot fewer men and boys constantly walking around with weapons on them.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If more men could do this, there'd be a lot fewer men and boys constantly walking around with weapons on them.

Message boards would also be much less popular.

Posted

Certainly not a criminal lawyer but $250K seems pretty low for a murder rap.  I would expect $500K -$1MM more typical.  Anyone with knowledge want to weigh in?  I'm not looking for arguments what "should" be the case.  I'm asking if any practitioner has relevant market insight.

Posted
46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

All fair points. So what standard of “danger to the public” needs to be met so that someone is not released on bond?

Posted

The amount bail and reasoning behind it is at the discretion of the judge or magistrate.  This is the guidance from the statute:

Quote

 

(b) In setting bail under this article, the magistrate shall impose the least restrictive conditions, if any, and the personal bond or cash or surety bond necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense.

(c) In each criminal case, unless specifically provided by other law, there is a rebuttable presumption that bail, conditions of release, or both bail and conditions of release are sufficient to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense.

 

Feel free to read the statute.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hate said:

So what standard of “danger to the public” needs to be met so that someone is not released on bond?

It's going to be entirely fact-specific.

Imagine if you killed someone (it could happen).  The circumstances would likely be a pretty freakish one-off.  Your deranged neighbor comes over and threatens you, he lunges at you.  You are one of those guys who carries a basic lockblade knife with him.  You are able to pull it, and you stab him, he dies.  Maybe a witness saw y'all arguing beforehand, so your self-defense claim isn't enough, and you get charged with murder.

The circumstances are that you have a clean record, no history of violence of violent threats, and whatever the case (murder or self-defense), your violent act here was clearly a product of a particular circumstance, not some wider violent trend.  Bottom line, even if you DID murder your neighbor, you're not likely to be a threat of violence to anyone else.

Compare that to someone who is charged with killing a member of a rival gang.  The accused has a long record of violent offenses and threats to kill others.  The accused has a record of a long-standing beef with the entire rival gang, and was heard at various times threatening members of the rival gang.  He is reasonably likely to commit further violence along those lines if he's released.

It's not just the act alleged (you killed someone).  It's the circumstances that make you a likely future threat to others or not.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's going to be entirely fact-specific.

Imagine if you killed someone (it could happen).  The circumstances would likely be a pretty freakish one-off.  Your deranged neighbor comes over and threatens you, he lunges at you.  You are one of those guys who carries a basic lockblade knife with him.  You are able to pull it, and you stab him, he dies.  Maybe a witness saw y'all arguing beforehand, so your self-defense claim isn't enough, and you get charged with murder.

The circumstances are that you have a clean record, no history of violence of violent threats, and whatever the case (murder or self-defense), your violent act here was clearly a product of a particular circumstance, not some wider violent trend.  Bottom line, even if you DID murder your neighbor, you're not likely to be a threat of violence to anyone else.

Compare that to someone who is charged with killing a member of a rival gang.  The accused has a long record of violent offenses and threats to kill others.  The accused has a record of a long-standing beef with the entire rival gang, and was heard at various times threatening members of the rival gang.  He is reasonably likely to commit further violence along those lines if he's released.

It's not just the act alleged (you killed someone).  It's the circumstances that make you a likely future threat to others or not.

I think his username might be held against him at the bail hearing.

  • Haha 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Hate said:

You people look for any slight nuance in a post that you can use to wow everyone with your enlightenment. Fuck off.

That’s all well and good, but what do you mean by “you people”? 

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Pre-trial detention has a very limited purpose. It should not be and is not the default of the legal system in part because pre-trial detention is functionally identical to imprisoning someone without a trial. If your view of "danger to society" was adopted, everyone accused of a potentially violent crime or of crimes like theft would be subject to jail without trial.  Here, the circumstances of this incident don't implicate a general danger to society while out on bond. This appears by all accounts to be an isolated incident with a particular individual in a particular setting. His "admission" to the crime came with a pretty important caveat that he was defending himself AND an expression of concern for the well being of the victim. 

No one is calling you names. No one is attacking you. We are simply explaining the law. And we are explaining why your argument isn't and should be a basis to jail him prior to any conviction. Stop being so sensitive. Man up. 

People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there.

Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult.  You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep.  You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there.

Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult.  You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep.  You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.

 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

People take legal commentary amazingly personally and read into it things that aren't there.

Also, representing an incarcerated defendant is quite difficult.  You can't just call him up and have a privileged conversation, or have him come by the office for lengthy discussion and witness prep.  You have to do it at the jail, on their schedule, and take extra precautions to avoid eavesdroppers and waiver of privilege.


 

username checks out

  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Does the amount of the bond also have any relationship to the means of the defendant and/or their potential to flee the country/state?

It could, but mostly in the case of the uber-wealthy who have a known history of flitting about the globe, but its the latter, a by-product of wealth, rather than wealth itself.  It's mostly taken care of by surrender of passport.

On the other hand, excessive bail can be challenged on the ground that it is unaffordable.

Posted
2 hours ago, Hate said:

Jesus Christ yall are beating. I never said he should not be given a fair trial. I replied to someone that suggested the lowered bond would indicate he was not a danger to society. I replied that the fact that he had murdered someone would indicate he is a danger to society. Someone then suggested that I was suggesting he was guilty until proven innocent to which I replied the suspect had told the police that he was not alleged to have done it but that he in fact did actually do it. Never did I suggest that he not be given a trial or have any of his legal rights infringed upon. You people look for any slight nuance in a post that you can use to wow everyone with your enlightenment. Fuck off.  

Lol no kidding. He clearly did it, is clearly a murderer, is clearly the aggressor and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt” is the perfect descriptor of most in here. Yes, this guy absolutely is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of what you think. That is the way society works when 30 people watched you stab a guy in the heart. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Does the amount of the bond also have any relationship to the means of the defendant and/or their potential to flee the country/state?

Yes.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Lol no kidding. He clearly did it, is clearly a murderer, is clearly the aggressor and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt” is the perfect descriptor of most in here. Yes, this guy absolutely is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of what you think. That is the way society works when 30 people watched you stab a guy in the heart. 

That is stupid and you're stupid for thinking it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If that's true, then its also true I assume that posts you make on surly can be held against you?

 

Oh shit. 

 

 

What is this, England?

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Lol no kidding. He clearly did it, is clearly a murderer, is clearly the aggressor and @BabaYaga’s use of “legal cunt” is the perfect descriptor of most in here. Yes, this guy absolutely is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of what you think. That is the way society works when 30 people watched you stab a guy in the heart. 

nvmnd

Edited by Foosters
Posted
14 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If that's true, then its also true I assume that posts you make on surly can be held against you?

 

Oh shit. 

 

 

I've heard of a damning deposition testimony regarding the meaning of Tree Fiddy.  

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...