Legal Question

[biggsy]

A prominent attorney is accused of molesting a child twelve years of age or older. He is arrested and is allowed to post 50,000 for bail. He subsequently tries to contact the family of the alleged visctim (rules of his bail prohibit this). His bail is revoked and he is arrested and has to post 100,000 for bail after a psychiatric evaluation. Now here is my question; does he lose that 50k and have to post 100k or does he just have to post another 50k to make the 100k total? Does he get the money returned or this is his fee for being allowed his freedom while awaiting trila. I have never had to post bail so I am just confused by this story I have been following here locally. Thanks in advance for your insights!

[PatMyGreen]

You get bail/bond back after you go to trial as long as you post it yourself, not thru a bondsmen. Not sure about the original 50K, I'm gussing that he would have to post a full new 100K if he screwed up the first time, but would get all 150K back after he went thru trial. The purpose of posting bail is just to make it too expensive to skip the area and free up space in the jails.

[biggsy]

That would make sense, so now if he was to skip town, he would lose the whole thing??? Right?

[Letrappes]

The bail money is taken by the court if the person skips out. As long as the person attends the trial, regardless of outcome, the bail is returned in full. I don't know if they would take fees out of this though.

[Grouper Slayer]

No fees are taken out if he posts it himself. a bondsman charges 10% and that is his fee. Threoeticlly this guy only needed to come up with 15 grand. But that is now the bondsmans fee.

[mlex]

Guys,
In order for the Bondsman to post bail, he will be paid his 10% up front, the client then will secure the bail with the total bail plus in assetts assigned to the bonding agency, finally the bondsman goes to the court system and guarantees his client appearance. What that means is that the Bondsman is holding $150,000.00+ of the lawyer's assetts. Should the lawyer jump, the assetts become the Bondsman's because he has just had to pay the remainder to the court. This is why they pursue bail jumpers with such predjudice.
Never been there, had a friend who dumped and jumped.

[Letrappes]

By fees I was thinking court fines might come out of the bail before they give it back.

[PAT A]

The courts will take the fines out of the bail money if you request them to do so.

[fernandezh]

That is a tough situation for the Attorney. Child Molestation is one of those crimes where if you are accused then you automatically become guilty in the eyes of the public and he has an uphill battle ahead of him. Regardless of his innocence or guilt he has an uphill battle ahead of him.

[LuvMyRedDog]

Two situations, 1) scumbag posts the bail himself, or, 2) scumbag purchases a bond from a bondsman.

In situation 1, the court set a $50K bail for scumbag, he posts it, and is released. Then, after scumbag violates the terms of the bond, his bail is revoked and he is taken back into custody. The purpose of bail is to secure the prisoner's appearance in court. Bail is no longer needed in this situation b/c scumbag is in custody. So, scumbag can get his $50K back now (may need a motion, but is entitled to his $50K). Then, when the court sets bail at $100K, scumbag only has to come up with another $50K.

I like situation 2. Here, scumbag purchases a bond from Mr. Bailbondsman. A $50K bond will cost you $5K non-refundable. The purchase of the bond is good through the term of the bond. In our scenario, the bond was revoked because of a violation of the terms of the bond. At that time, the original bond has served it's term and the bonding agent is entitled to return of his bond. Now, when the court sets bail at $100K, scumbag will either have to post the $100K in cash, or purchase a bond from an agent for $10K.

[Daddy_Jeffy]

So, You don't care much for lawyers who molest 12 year olds, do you Red Dog.

[Stodelle]

The other option here is for the family to petition the courts that as long as the bail is set low, and the attorney has the financial means to post it, that they are in fear for their's and their child's safety. Given that he contacted the family on his first posting release, they can get this pretty easily.....depending on the system their in that particular area.

I assisted, and investigated, with the Crimes against children unit of our Sheriff's Dept for many years and always enjoyed going to bat for the victims. I also love the look on the suspect's face when you argue what a risk he is and the judge rasies bail to 500k or more. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet...

[LuvMyRedDog]

Stodelle,

In the scenario here, scumbag already went back to court when his bond was revoked the first time. So, the judge knew about scumbag's contact with the victim/family when the judge set the second bail at $100K. I wonder what the Court was thinking!

[Grouper Slayer]

Democrat judges

[jeffe]

Most agencys have a provision where by the agency head can authorise a "property bond". The arresting agency in effect becomes a lien holder on the property given in bond. IE: parents Home, ect.. However the records released to the media would still reflect that he had posted the bond, although no actual cash had ever changed hands. Many agency heads just simply look in the tax office to view the actual value and encumberment of the property put up in lieu of cash bond. Flight risk and political repercussions make this a unattractive option for most agency heads, unless the offender is a politicaly "sound" individual. He , He , He , . . . is the arresting agency head an elected official ?