Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Accused denied bail due to "likelihood of guilt"?
  • Subject: Accused denied bail due to "likelihood of guilt"?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Accused denied bail due to "likelihood of guilt"?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Pick your source/story, I don't like being accused of using "biased" sources.

"Judge Deborah J. Lipps said the case has moved quickly, so far. Due to "likelihood of guilt", though, Stokes was ordered to remain detained at Clark County Detention Center without bail."

I can understand that a judge may know and be influenced by the state's request for bail/remand, but isn't such a statement prejudicial and counter to the presumption of innocence that our system is supposed to have?

Denying bail due to a flight risk, or an obvious risk to the community is one thing, but I don't believe that any reasonable or competent judge would be caught dead using the term "likelihood of guilt".

  • 01.02.2013 11:11 AM PDT

Most of what I say is sarcasm, the rest is of the highest intellect.

It depends what factor of the case made it likely.

  • 01.02.2013 11:13 AM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

One of the stories listed her bail being elevated from $60,000 to $600,000, then a later story has it removed entirely.

It sounds to me like the state is pretty confident in her case, and is worried she is a flight risk. I see no problem here.

  • 01.02.2013 11:14 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Night Groper
It depends what factor of the case made it likely.

That's just it. We're talking bail, not a trial where evidence is presented and challenged.

  • 01.02.2013 11:14 AM PDT

Recon Number 54 -
If they are still looking, then while holding the snarl, I let drool start to drip from my mouth, I stand, curl my fingers into claws and with a hunched over crouch, I then make slow and deliberate steps towards them. When I get close enough, I let them hear my agonized and gasping growls and then, if they continue to stare, when I get within arm's reach? I kiss them on the nose, and run away giggling.

They found blood on her clothes matching the DNA of the girl. She is also a murder/assault suspect so in this case I would say it is alright to deny Bail. But using the term 'likelihood of guilt' is obviously going to cause some issues, the judge could have found another reason such as danger to others to deny it.

  • 01.02.2013 11:14 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The Searcher sucks. Nobody date him.

I dunno, I buy girls dinner all the time due to "likelihood of make-out."

Of course, I guess my low success rate in that area only proves your point.

[Edited on 01.02.2013 11:20 AM PST]

  • 01.02.2013 11:14 AM PDT

Well that's dumb.

  • 01.02.2013 11:15 AM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"

I'm fairly confident that that's not Constitutional.

  • 01.02.2013 11:25 AM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: NewRadical12
I'm fairly confident that that's not Constitutional.
I'm fairly sure it is.

People are held without bail all the time. It just means that the state is so confident in their case that they have determined she is a flight risk.

  • 01.02.2013 11:26 AM PDT

Posted by: AngryBrute1
Oh yeah, since somebody does not believe what YOU believe; that makes us vapid...
I cannot grasp that what you call "Something happened to nothing, and that nothing became something, and it was smaller than than a period."

I think it would depend on the crime committed and the evidence so far.
Example: If the crime was a murder and there was an eyewitness who gave a very detailed description of the criminal, I think they could deny bail because the likelihood of the accused being guilty is really high.

  • 01.02.2013 11:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Foman is my favorite moderator. <3

Likelihood of guilt was probably poor wording and might cause poopstorm.

Should stick to phrases like "strong evidence" and "danger to community due to charges presented".

Bail hearing isn't about guilt or innocence.

[Edited on 01.02.2013 11:32 AM PST]

  • 01.02.2013 11:30 AM PDT


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: NewRadical12
I'm fairly confident that that's not Constitutional.
I'm fairly sure it is.

People are held without bail all the time. It just means that the state is so confident in their case that they have determined she is a flight risk.


Right, but being a flight risk because you have a lot of money and already aren't cooperating with the police is totally different from a judge saying "I'm pretty sure you're guilty without any trial, so I'm not gonna give you bail."

That is unconstitutional. I understand where the judge is coming from completely, but it still is not right.

  • 01.02.2013 11:30 AM PDT

Shakes Magic 8 Ball

So what's your quarrel here? She stabbed a 10 year old girl and slashed somebody else. If this were my decision, I'd do the same thing.

It's not as if they automatically deemed her guilty, just that it's clear and evident that she is likely guilty.

  • 01.02.2013 11:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Probably shouldn't have said that. Even if it will most likely be an open and shut case.

  • 01.02.2013 11:31 AM PDT

Most of what I say is sarcasm, the rest is of the highest intellect.


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Night Groper
It depends what factor of the case made it likely.

That's just it. We're talking bail, not a trial where evidence is presented and challenged.
Oh damn, well I guess he has no grounds on which to do that.

  • 01.02.2013 11:32 AM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: Oa Beast292

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: NewRadical12
I'm fairly confident that that's not Constitutional.
I'm fairly sure it is.

People are held without bail all the time. It just means that the state is so confident in their case that they have determined she is a flight risk.


Right, but being a flight risk because you have a lot of money and already aren't cooperating with the police is totally different from a judge saying "I'm pretty sure you're guilty without any trial, so I'm not gonna give you bail."

That is unconstitutional. I understand where the judge is coming from completely, but it still is not right.
No, seriously, it is.

You don't need a lot of money to flee. Its not like you have to run to Aruba under an assumed name. You just need to go where they can't find you.

  • 01.02.2013 11:32 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.

Unusual statement, but in reality, that is the same essence as saying she is a danger to herself or others. The likelihood of her being guilty of the crime is reason to believe she is extremely dangerous and should not be released. Though, the judge could have easily made the case she is dangerous without saying the words "probability of guilt". Just seems a case of being a bit too honest.

  • 01.02.2013 11:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Hopefully Foman will post.

  • 01.02.2013 11:38 AM PDT


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
No, seriously, it is.

You don't need a lot of money to flee. Its not like you have to run to Aruba under an assumed name. You just need to go where they can't find you.


Not cooperating with police and being a flight risk is different from an "unbiased" judge saying that you are probably guilty even before trial (the exact opposite of the constitution). Just like I said before.

The judge can deem you a flight risk because they believe you won't comply with the investigation, as advised from the prosecutor who knows the defendant hasn't been cooperating, not because the judge thinks you're guilty.

  • 01.02.2013 11:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

I can see a diligent defense attorney attempt to claim that the judge in the bail hearing was clearly prejudicial, and now that it's hit the news "that a judge said that she was likely guilty before even a trial" will then taint/influence any potential juror who has heard of the case.

Which if I were a defense attorney who is supposed to use any and every reasonable method to ensure my client gets a fair and diligent defense, I would be jumping all over the bail judge's remark(s).

I am surprised that a judge would make such a statement, even if they were thinking it, it is unwise and counterproductive to verbalize.

  • 01.02.2013 12:12 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: Recon Number 54
I can see a diligent defense attorney attempt to claim that the judge in the bail hearing was clearly prejudicial, and now that it's hit the news "that a judge said that she was likely guilty before even a trial" will then taint/influence any potential juror who has heard of the case.

Which if I were a defense attorney who is supposed to use any and every reasonable method to ensure my client gets a fair and diligent defense, I would be jumping all over the bail judge's remark(s).

I am surprised that a judge would make such a statement, even if they were thinking it, it is unwise and counterproductive to verbalize.


Its not the first thing I've heard from a judge that is stupid.

As many of you know, Mrs Charlie is a Family Law Attorney. She's told me about how judges would grant a restraining order against the other spouse, but not demand that he or she move out, cuss out a disabled house wife for not trying to work (she was quadriplegic) and even one who wired her courtroom with cameras so she could use real court footage as her audition tape to be he next Judge Judy.

Judges do stupid stuff all the time.

  • 01.02.2013 12:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Lady Astor: "If I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
Winston Churchill: "If I were your husband I'd drink it !"


Posted by: Recon Number 54
I can see a diligent defense attorney attempt to claim that the judge in the bail hearing was clearly prejudicial, and now that it's hit the news "that a judge said that she was likely guilty before even a trial" will then taint/influence any potential juror who has heard of the case.

Which if I were a defense attorney who is supposed to use any and every reasonable method to ensure my client gets a fair and diligent defense, I would be jumping all over the bail judge's remark(s).

I am surprised that a judge would make such a statement, even if they were thinking it, it is unwise and counterproductive to verbalize.


I'm surprised at her level of confidence, the defence will hands down use that against her in the trial.

I don't understand why a judge would come out make a comment like that either - the judges were I live (within the United Kingdom) usually don't involve them self in the media as much

  • 01.02.2013 12:20 PM PDT

I think it is better to take each case on its own merits rather than follow arbitrary rules just because they're there. If they considered this person to be a flight risk, then there was no problem with detaining her in my opinion.

  • 01.02.2013 12:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

These are the kinds of mistakes that the defense can use as ammo to turn the tides of a case even with strong evidence.

See OJ.

10 bucks says they pull the race card as well if they haven't already.

[Edited on 01.02.2013 12:59 PM PST]

  • 01.02.2013 12:42 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2