This is directed to attorneys and other legally informed folks on bmg. Given the unprecedented magnitude of Bernie Madoff’s fraud, would it be reasonable to keep him under custody rather than allow him to remain free, even with an ankle bracelet? Aren’t non-wealthy criminal suspects whose alleged actions have inflicted far less harm than Bernie’s held in custody? If it’s a differentiation between “violent crime” and “white-collar crime,” isn’t the impact of the millions of dollars that will not be received by charitable institutions as a result of Madoff’s fraud a form of violence against those who will not receive help from those institutions?
To me, if there is justice, Madoff ought to wait in custody for his trial. Those are my non-lawyer thoughts and I would like to hear from the legal community on when you can hold someone and when you must allow them out on bail. Doesn’t the fact that this is possibly the biggest Ponzi scheme ever make a difference?
my understanding is that people who have been arrested can be held without bail only if allowing them out on bond would be unacceptably dangerous. Madoff isn’t about to go beating people up while awaiting trial (nor, obviously, will he be in a position to commit additional financial crimes). As long as his presence at future court dates can be guaranteed, I can’t see how he could be held pending trial.
I was working with the FBI on a criminal case several years ago in NYC. They finally arrested the guy, but as they raided his store to make the arrest, he baracaded himself in his office and tried to kill himself.
<
p>At arraignment he pled not guilty and the judge set bail pretty low (white collar). We argued mightily that he might kill himself, and the judge said (nearly quoting), “preventing suicide is not within my power at arraignment. I can only hold him if he’s a danger to others. Is he a threat or danger to others?”
<
p>Answer: no, but he’s a threat to himself.
<
p>Bail was set and paid. He killed himself that night. To this day, I’ve often thought about that ruling and that judge. I can easily imagine Madoff killing himself, but it doesn’t seem to worry NYC judges.
that under the law, he couldn’t use “threat to self” as a reason to hold the guy? if so, it’s not the judge’s fault. have you tried getting the law amended?
NY law’s not my problem anymore, but the mayhem and loss created by that crook 10 years ago continues to this day. So, in hindsight, it was the right decision regardless whether it was the law. Same’s probably true of Madoff.
did the judge have the legal freedom to detain the guy for being a danger to himself?
As I said though, it was the ‘right’ decision, even though it may have been legally wrong.
Since when is Laurel the legal conservative?
I have not made any statement on the decision, conservative or liberal or of any other flavor. But since gary initially criticized the judge’s decision, I was curious as to whether the criticism had any legal merit whatsoever (as in, is it fair to criticize the decision when it was the only one the law allowed the judge anyway). I’m guessing not, but as gary has this sudden amnesia, I guess we will never know for sure. Aaaaand, fade to black….
Maybe you didn’t see all of his comments, as he essentially admits, that you are right, but that this (while legally correct) was the wrong decision.
<
p>Anyway, I’m going to assume that the posters are Bizzaro Laurel and gary until further notice.
There are no libertarians in recessions nor conservatives in criminal court. I personally chased that guy for 2 years, and when we finally caught him he kills himself!? Think about the poor smuck with SEC who complained about Madoff for a decade only to be poo-pooed by the upper levels. Frankly I suppose one could conclude, where’s the justice unless he kills himself.
<
p>As to whether or not the judge was right in not holding him (or Madoff) in arraignment if there is a possibility of suicide, there are so many sides to that argument, it boils down to 1) trial discretion 2) expediency inasmuch as an appeal would take such time as to be likely meaningless.
<
p>So, is a NY judge ruling from the bench right or wrong to withhold bail if the prosecutor alleges suicide risk or risk to public or flight risk? As far as I’m concerned, since its pretty much the Judge’s discretion, he’s always right.
I guess they figure the ankle bracelet solves that.