Fatal Officer involved shooting and pursuit, as paged
- Thread starter jimmnn
- Start date
- Status
Was just having a look at this thread, a few days late, and the name and age rang a bell with me. I think it's the same person. If so ... What the devil was he doing NOT in jail??? Bond not high enough? "Out on bond awaiting trial in Mesa County on attempted murder and other charges"
Arrest in shooting in Fruita | GJSentinel.com
Arrest in shooting in Fruita | GJSentinel.com
Last edited:
Well a charge is not evidence of guilt, and most people get at least an opportunity to post pending trial. Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 19 contains very specific requirements about bail/pre-trial detention issues, and it may have limited the judges ability to impose high bail amounts in this very case.
Last edited:
To the contrary. The ABA pretrial release standards are commonly used in many states, and include all of the following:
Poses no significant risk of fleeing;
Poses no significant threat or danger to any person, the community, or to property;
Poses no significant risk of committing any felony; and
Poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing justice.
I'd say this clown fit #2 and #3.
I grew up elsewhere. Are these standards not in play in Colorado?
Poses no significant risk of fleeing;
Poses no significant threat or danger to any person, the community, or to property;
Poses no significant risk of committing any felony; and
Poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing justice.
I'd say this clown fit #2 and #3.
I grew up elsewhere. Are these standards not in play in Colorado?
NO, they are not. All state Judges in Colorado State courts are bound by the State Constitutional Standards, which provide as follows:
Section 19. Right to bail - exceptions. (1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except:
(a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great; or
(b) When, after a hearing held within ninety-six hours of arrest and upon reasonable notice, the court finds that proof is evident or presumption is great as to the crime alleged to have been committed and finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the accused were released on bail and such person is accused in any of the following cases:
(I) A crime of violence, as may be defined by the general assembly, alleged to have been committed while on probation or parole resulting from the conviction of a crime of violence;
(II) A crime of violence, as may be defined by the general assembly, alleged to have been committed while on bail pending the disposition of a previous crime of violence charge for which probable cause has been found;
(III) A crime of violence, as may be defined by the general assembly, alleged to have been committed after two previous felony convictions, or one such previous felony conviction if such conviction was for a crime of violence, upon charges separately brought and tried under the laws of this state or under the laws of any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which, if committed in this state, would be a felony; or
(c) (Deleted by amendment, L. 94, p. 2853, effective upon proclamation of the Governor, L. 95, p. 1434, January 1, 1995.)
(2) Except in the case of a capital offense, if a person is denied bail under this section, the trial of the person shall be commenced not more than ninety days after the date on which bail is denied. If the trial is not commenced within ninety days and the delay is not attributable to the defense, the court shall immediately schedule a bail hearing and shall set the amount of the bail for the person.
(2.5) (a) The court may grant bail after a person is convicted, pending sentencing or appeal, only as provided by statute as enacted by the general assembly; except that no bail is allowed for persons convicted of:
(I) Murder;
(II) Any felony sexual assault involving the use of a deadly weapon;
(III) Any felony sexual assault committed against a child who is under fifteen years of age;
(IV) A crime of violence, as defined by statute enacted by the general assembly; or
(V) Any felony during the commission of which the person used a firearm.
(b) The court shall not set bail that is otherwise allowed pursuant to this subsection (2.5) unless the court finds that:
(I) The person is unlikely to flee and does not pose a danger to the safety of any person or the community; and
(II) The appeal is not frivolous or is not pursued for the purpose of delay.
(3) This section shall take effect January 1, 1995, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after said date.
It's possible this individual SHOULD have had higher bail under these standards, I really don't know. I would want to see the materials available to the Judge who made the bail decision. It's quite possible the prosecutor didn't request a higher bail amount, as compared to what the judge imposed, perhaps because they didn't want to expend a lot of resources preparing for a contested bail hearing.
Last edited:
I was responding to your original post, which I had read *before* you modified it (the original arrived here by email), that read:
"Well a charge is not evidence of guilt, and most people get at least an opportunity to post pending trial. As I understand it, bail conditions are largely based on a persons likelihood of appearing at future court proceedings, NOT their likelihood of committing new crimes." It appears your understanding changed a bit over the course of a few minutes!
Anyway --- The Colorado list is certainly a heck of a lot more than risk of failure to appear, but it looks like Colorado has a 'two strike rule' when it comes to bail. I wonder if this guy had ever been before a judge before for a violent crime, or if the prior was his 1st?
"Well a charge is not evidence of guilt, and most people get at least an opportunity to post pending trial. As I understand it, bail conditions are largely based on a persons likelihood of appearing at future court proceedings, NOT their likelihood of committing new crimes." It appears your understanding changed a bit over the course of a few minutes!
Anyway --- The Colorado list is certainly a heck of a lot more than risk of failure to appear, but it looks like Colorado has a 'two strike rule' when it comes to bail. I wonder if this guy had ever been before a judge before for a violent crime, or if the prior was his 1st?
- Status
Similar threads
