home
Understandable misunderstanding of the bail law (none / 0) (#16)
by Peter G on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:10:31 PM EST
Aquarian: Completely understandable, but your comment is based on a misinterpretation of the federal Bail Reform Act standard for granting bail pending appeal.  As interpreted by the courts themselves (and quite logically so) a "substantial question" which is "likely to result in reversal," under this statute (18 USC 3143(b)) means one which will likely result in his release IF the defendant's position on the issue proves correct.  In other words, the error that the defendant points out as a basis for his/her appeal was not "waived" or would not be "harmless error."  The bail ruling is not a prejudgment on the merits of the appeal.  That is not to say it isn't a good sign; it definitely is.  But it does not guarantee or even predict a later win.  

[ Parent ]
Point taken -- not a bail expert (none / 0) (#17)
by aquarian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
Thanks for clarifying Peter (and being nice enough not to say Tsk, Tsk, read the statute!)

Didn't mean to suggest that court was prejudging merits -- courts of appeals frequently grant stays pending appeal based on "likelihood of success on the merits" and turn around and later deny appeal on merits.  Of course, I should have realized that the standard for criminal relief might be different than civil relief.

On the other hand, I take it that Siegelman had to establish some measure of credible support before the court would grant the motion. Based on the Court's ruling, and the failure of the district court to provide a satisfactory explanation, the prosecution has to be pretty concerned.  I am never one to predict where a court of appeals will come out, but there is a definite tone to this order.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Peter G on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:25 PM EST


[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft