"As the court has no authority to grant an appeal bond in this case, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's eligibility for a bond," Emerson wrote in his three-page order. "The motion for bond is dismissed. "The hearing scheduled for July 5, 2007, is therefore cancelled."
Okay legal eagles, why does the superior court in the original sentencing jurisdiction not have the authority to grant bond? The sad fact is the entire legal profession in Georgia is developing a black eye from the continued use of legal arcana to keep a young man who is clearly no threat to society in jail.
4 comments:
I think, but do not know for certain, that the original sentencing court lost jurisdiction over this case when it became a habeas matter. At that point, any issues about custody of Wilson or whether he should be granted bail is in the hands of the court where he is being held.
But that's just a guess because I haven't had time to actually check this crap out yet.
The next question becomes, obviously, why can't the habeas court grant bail. And the answer there is because the habeas court has ruled that he should be released so there is no reason to set bail. The appeals court does not have the power, to my knowledge, to grant bail pending an appeal. So I think bail just isn't a procedural option until the appeal is settled.
But maybe one of the other legal eagles has the time and energy to check this out for real and not just talk out of their ass like I am. (Richard? You want to take on a research assignment akin to beating your head against the wall?)
If that is true this is one of the most mind boggling pieces of judicial bureacratic stupidity I have ever seen. Kafka comes to Georgia.
I think I'm actually wrong, as is the Douglas county court. this decision sure makes it sound like only the original sentencing court whose sentence was overturned may decide bail when a successful habeas challenge is appealed.
OK so it all centers around the idea that if you are convicted of aggravated child molestation then you can't have bail pending appeal. That is a really stupid law and one that sounds unconstitutional where a heabeas challenge was successful and the Atty general is appealing an order that the defendant be released. I can understand if a person convicted of the crime is appealing their sentence that you wouldn't want them to delay going to jail while it winds its way through the appeals process, but this is a completely different scenario. In effect, by saying he can never have bail even while the state appeals his successful habeas challenge the statute nullifies the effect of the habeas law. The state can tie up his case for years with appeals, and by the time the appeals are all exhausted he may have served 5 or 6 unnecessary years in jail. That's BS.
Post a Comment