State Supreme Court calls for reasonable bonds (NM judges -let the killers walk free!)

KOAT-TV, Albuquerque ^ | June 12, 2015 | Nancy Laflin

[CedarDave]

At a time when New Mexico judges are under fire for not being tougher on suspected criminals, the state Supreme Court is telling them to give suspects more rights.

Even some suspects accused of murder would be allowed the chance to get out of jail on lower bonds, or no bond at all. The high court said Walter Brown's case is the reason.

In 2011, Brown was accused of fatally stabbing a man in the heart. A judge set his bond at $250,000. According to court records, he sat behind bars for more than two years awaiting trial.

But last year, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that was unconstitutional, because Brown could never afford that high a bond and deserved a speedy trial. Now the high court is telling local judges to let many suspects -- even those accused of violent crimes -- out with either a reduced bond, or none at all.

[CedarDave]

Democrat judge insanity!! Rio Rancho just buried a police officer who was killed during a traffic stop by a multiple felon whose offenses included a killing. In this instance the judge allowed a plea deal with no time served. The criminal instead of going to a treatment center as directed, decided to rob convenience stores.

[MrEdd]

Take a look at this Waco fiasco and get back to us.

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)

[Blood of Tyrants]

I agree that everyone deserves a speedy trial but surety bonds are placed on people who are deemed to be a flight risk and the higher the risk, the higher the bond. Bonds are not meant to be affordable for the sake of letting someone out of jail.

[RitaOK]

New Mexico has rather gone to the dark side. Scratch them off in 2016, as it sadly seems there are only pockets of outnumbered Republican votes.

A suspected result of Hollywood types moving eastward with deep pockets.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

and

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

and

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If someone is being held on excessively-high bail (or no bail), and are not afforded their right to a speedy trial, then aren't they being deprived of liberty without due process of law? Seems pretty clear based on a plain reading of the Constitution (for what that's worth anymore).

[fwdude]

But refuse a wedding cake to a couple of dykes, and bail denied.

[CedarDave]

Take a look at this Waco fiasco and get back to us.

That's the other end of the spectrum - a million-dollar bond for nearly 200 bikers, many of whom did not have anything to do with the fight and resultant killing. Saw a link to the Waco newspaper that bonds were lowered for most all those released but there are still dozens in jail awaiting a hearing.

Updated: List of Twin Peaks bikers jailed, released

[Parley Baer]

“Take a look at this Waco fiasco and get back to us.”

Precisely for the other end of the spectrum.

[Pollster1]

The correct answer is to start trial within 30 days of arrest - no exceptions. If the prosecution isn’t read for trial that soon, then the arrest was premature.

[the_Watchman]

Holding a person for 2 years without a trial is nonsense!

Perhaps the higher courts could have imposed a time-limited bond. It reduces in time like a price in a Dutch auction. Suppose the bond is reduced by 10% on the remaining balance every month. If a miscreant gets out on the streets, then it is on the prosecutor’s office and courts who couldn’t manage to bring it to trial.

[alpo]

As is taking 30 years to carry out a death sentence.

[precisionshootist]

"Bonds are not meant to be affordable for the sake of letting someone out of jail."

Not exactly.

Specifically bonds are not meant as a means of keeping someone IN jail. They are meant to insure an appearance in court and nothing more because at that point the accused is still assumed innocent.

The Waco biker roundup is a text book example of illegally and unconstitutionally using bond to imprison someone without a trial.

[Pollster1]

Even if the courts don’t impose a limit, prosecutors should. It is a miscarriage of justice to hold a trial over someone’s head for years and then acquit them, and it is equally wrong to make witnesses and victims wait for years to testify before you finally get a conviction. Professional pride and a sense of justice should lead to a speedy trial even if the courts do not demand it.

[sean327]

No one reads the constitution anymore! I’m willing to bet that the majority of the people posting on this thread who hate this ruling would be screaming bloody murder if their bond was too high and they sat in jail for 2 damn years.

There is no grey area when it comes to the constitution! Conservatives who look the other way because they think they are being tough on crime are just as guilty of crapping on the constitution as Liberals are.

Let the flame war begin!