Replies

If you read a transcript of the hearing, it would, by necessity, have included the judge.

If you had watched the hearing, it would be clear to you that the judge will hear more about the bail reduction at the next hearing. He doesn't seem disposed to grant a bail reduction, but the matter is put over until the next hearing, where it won't be the priority or leading matter, but nevertheless will be heard.

Bail reduction hearings often get into the strength of the evidence against the accused, and the stronger the evidence is, usually the bail tips on the higher side because there is a working theory that a defendant facing powerful evidence is more likely to flee than a defendant with a solid defense. A righteous bail hearing would, in this case, get into the evidence of that defense. One might think from Judge Stephens' tepid response that he doesn't want that to happen, which makes me wonder why that might be.

And for those who are interested in the subject of bail as a serious matter and not just something to annoy other posters about, here's a little info on bail generally and in relation to this case. The amount of bail set is supposed to be the MINIMUM amount required to assure the appearance of the defendant at hearings, trial, or otherwise called to appear by the court, not the MAXIMUM. It is not supposed to be punitive. Letters and other expressions of confidence in the defendant's honest and willing ability to abide by the court's direction put forward by people in high-ranking positions of government authority usually carry considerable weight, especially in connection to defendants unsaddled with serious criminal histories. Some may be aware of cases where a young person was released into the supervision of a teacher, for instance, instead of forcing bail to be posted. I know of a case where the mayor of a city vouched for an adult defendant, which brought about a bail reduction that allowed some much needed money to immediately flow back to the man's family. In this case, we have very weak evidence, a solid alibi, a young man still under the tutelage of well-respected parents and family in their community, and apparently an abundance of favorable statements from senators, congressmen, and other well-known people in positions of respect, honor and responsibility vouching for Reade, yet Stephens didn't warm rapidly to the idea of bail reduction discussions. Thinking not so much about the bail amount and its reduction itself, but rather the judge's reluctance to want to address the elements that go into the bail reduction presentation by the defense, I really have to wonder whassup with that. It has rather a bad odor to it, but we will see next month whether or not Judge Stephens gives the defense a full hearing on the subject; specifically if he tries to cut the defense off again when they talk about the (poor) evidence against Reade, Reade's solid alibi, and the statements of support from well-placed people they have to offer. Conversely, in fairness to the judge, it is also true that the fact that Reade is out on bail and there were other more pressing matters to address Thursday, such as the control of evidence, could have made the judge less enthused about addressing bail *at that moment* and actually will give the subject a fair hearing next month. It may be that he simply confirmed from Nifong that the bail was within schedule or guideline with the idea that as long as it wasn't totally out of line, the matter could wait another month. Judge Stephens may also have suspected, cynically in my opinion, the defense of using the whole bail reduction issue as a ploy to get their alibi formally out to the public as well as the statements of trust or praise from the highly-placed authorities vouching for Reade to improve Reade's image and denigrate Nifong's (not a difficult task, imo).