- Quickdraw McLaw
- 23 Comments
- 74 Views
- Should pretrial house arrest count as time served? [Nevada Current]
- Sigal Chattah is running for Nevada attorney general in 2022. [@RileySnyder]
- Nevada has passed 5,000 COVID related deaths. [News3LV]
- A reader wants to know if anyone attended the hearing on the annexation of the CLE board yesterday?
Pre Trial House Arrest
Another example of liberal over reach or lack of understanding. House arrest, ankle monitoring is an alternative to either staying in jail or posting a significant bail. The purpose of bail or ankle monitoring is to assure attendance of the defendant at trial, and in many cases is to protect victims and witnesses from retaliatory conduct of the defendant before trial. There has to be point in society were there is common sense.
Bail is not to protect alleged victims or witnesses. Maybe an ankle monitor is, but not bail. And I fail to see how this is liberal over reach. It seems like it would save a lot of money for tax payers if people with convictions for minor crimes just got confined at home and monitored electronically. Then we don't have to pay huge amounts to keep them in jail. Let their families take care of them. We can keep real criminals in the jails. Also Sigal is a dumpster fire rolling down a hill into a trainwreck that's a nuclear waste carrying train smashed into a truck carrying raw sewage.
how is bail not designed to protect the community? Someone with a sizeable financial interest at stake should be more inclined to stay out of trouble or, you know, not attempt to contact the victim, right?
people with minor crimes are not going to prison at the rate they used to be based on my personal observations and many individuals accused of serious crimes are routinely released to the electronic monitoring program by Judge Bonaventure at their first appearance. a lot of real criminals are currently at home right now. i think a man facing the death penalty is currently on that program.
and to your point about tax payers dollars, there is a house arrest program (different than the pre-trial monitoring program being discussed) where people sentenced to jail for minor crimes can apply for and are allowed to "serve" their sentence at home.
According to the ABA "The purpose of bail is simply to ensure that defendants will appear for trial and all pretrial hearings for which they must be present." If a person is a risk to the community, the alleged victim, or witnesses, that is an argument AGAINST bail, not for it.
I have assiduously avoided all aspects of criminal law from law school onwards. Never made sense. Here is an example of it yet again not making sense. What is the standard the courts apply re: bail? Or are we confusing bail with TROs?
@1:44 I think 12:22 is confusing bail w a TRO, but I don't think the courts are. 12:22 sounds like a law n order type who doesn't practice crim either.
12:22 here. how does what I said suggest that I am confusing bail with a restraining order? two factors (I think out of 8-9 that are in the NRS) that the courts take into consideration when determining bail is whether person is a danger to the community and flight risk. listen to any criminal calendar in justice court or bail argument in district court and that is what the state hits on when they argue for a certain amount.
to the comment that a person being a risk is an argument against bail, the state cannot hold people without bail except for very limited circumstances. the argument is that because the person is a danger to the community (and a flight risk as a result of pending criminal charges), bail must be set in x amount with other conditions.
@1:44, I believe the standard is "clear and convincing" evidence that the conditions imposed conditions are the least restrictive means to ensure the safety of the community and that a defendant will return to court.
Yeah…and if the person is a danger…they don't get bail. High bail might be an argument if they're a flight risk, but as the ABA pointed out, the point of bail is assure the defendant's appearance at future hearings so that tracks. The person being a risk to the community is exactly one of the limited reasons that state CAN hold a person without bail.
But please, keep digging.
Please read Valdez-Jimenez v. District Court, 460 P3d 976 (NV 2020) It sets out the standards for setting bail.
Ah, that did the trick. Thank you.
The purpose of bail in Nevada is twofold: to ensure "the presence of one charged at all times when demanded," Malley, 50 Nev. at 253-55, 256 P. at 514, and to protect the community, including the victim and the victim's family, see Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8A(1)(c) (requiring consideration of the safety of the victim and the victim's family in setting bail). Thus, the right to release before trial is conditioned on adequate assurance that the defendant will appear at all court proceedings and that he or she will not be a danger to other persons. Accordingly, for bail to be reasonable, it must relate to one of these two purposes—to ensure the appearance of the accused at all stages of the proceedings or to protect the safety of the victim and the community. Otherwise, it will necessarily be excessive in violation of the Nevada Constitution's bail provisions.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/investigations/lawyers-recovering-funds-for-theft-victims-request-315k-for-fees-2294240/
That is blood money. I would not take that money.
So you would do the work for free?
The question is not whether you would take the money, but whether you would take the case. I don't practice in that area and can't say whether or not the fees are reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that a case like this would be complicated and trigger substantial fees. It's a situation where if no effort is made, the victims will not know whether there are assets out there. But if an effort is made and returns very little, there will be complaints about the fees. It's a lose lose situation. Even if an attorney took this, underbilled it, and gave a discount, after four years of work the bill would still be large and would still risk very negative press. It would be better just to take a pass on this case altogether.
I would not strip the estate by a fifth either for paralegal work, but I have ethics.
It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it.
And if this work was not undertaken, what would creditors have expected to receive?
Maybe that's why Sigal hasn't been responsive in my case with her. She's just too busy.
Possibly, but not responding is generally her litigation tactic. She'll withdraw soon.
Hey anonymous @12:00p.m.- why are you anonymous? Call me now- at my desk waiting for your call-patiently.
What high noon said is not that bad? You need to chill,Sigal.
Hey, Unknown at 1:55 p.m., why are you unknown?
Sigal is running for AG . . . Oh, boy, let's alert the media!