Due Process

Unless you live under a rock, by now you have learned that the jury in this sensational murder trial has acquitted Casey Anthony on all homicide counts, convicting her only of the four misdemeanor counts of giving false information to law enforcement. Courtroom observers, in particular the legion of media present, had fully expected a conviction. The reaction from the so-called legal experts whose opinions have, in many instances, polluted the airways since the trial started ran from shock to sheer disgust.

None of the pundits who had repeatedly castigated Anthony and her defense lawyers expected anything short of a conviction. The crowd of morbid onlookers who assembled outside the courthouse vilified Anthony and decried a system that would allow someone they presumed to be guilty go free.

In a stern tone defense lawyer, Cheney Mason, in his post verdict press conference, criticized the assembled media that had fed the negative hysteria that infected this case from its inception, calling it “media assassination.” His harshest comments were directed at the group of what he called “incompetent talking heads . . . . My colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television talking about cases that they don’t know a damn thing about.” Cheney ended by congratulating those who have been professional in their comments and promising retribution for those who have not.

I have had the chance to watch most of the the last two weeks of the trial while home convalescing from some minor surgery. I have been particularly struck by the ready opinions offered by TV “judges,” bounty hunters, and a bevy of so-called legal experts who repeatedly painted lead counsel Jose Baez as incompetent or unethical or both. No one stood up to offer any insight in the magnitude of the task faced by these lawyers in preparing a defense in a complex forensic case, made all the more difficult by the emotions triggered by the brutal death and disposal of an innocent child. Baez was painted by these “experts” in Joe Pesce-esque fashion like he had stepped off the screen from My Cousin Vinny and into this case.

Did Baez make some missteps and incur the rebukes of Judge Belvin Perry–sure. Did he push the envelope in his zeal to defend his client–probably. There remain the threats from Judge Perry that there would be contempt proceedings following the trial’s conclusion. Were these the acts of a legal maverick with a win-at-all costs attitude, or the mark of a relatively inexperienced lawyer? Baez had only been admitted to the bar for three years before undertaking this case. His passion and commitment to such an unsympathetic client and cause was admirable. None of the talking heads had any praise for his closing argument which made masterful use of visual aids as he kept the jury focused on reasonable doubt.

One of the leading media naysayers continued in her disdain for Anthony claiming that the media was made aware of what she claimed was significant evidence of guilt that was kept from the jury. What a disservice to the trial judge who worked tirelessly to ensure that the trial was balanced and in accord with the constitutional requirements of due process. He was no special friend to the defense, frequently sustaining prosecution objections and limiting defense proposed testimony. What a disservice to the team of prosecutors who fervently believed in their case and had put on a CSI clinic in the weeks of evidence. Most of all, what a disservice to the criminal justice process.

We are a result oriented society who rely on what the news media chooses to filter through to us. Television coverage of sensational cases will continue and is soon to become the norm in this state. If the process is to do justice to the system, the victims and the defendants we need balanced coverage from the media and unbiased objective analysis from the lawyers they call upon to help educate the public.

Trial by ordeal went out in the middle ages and we replaced it with concepts like “presumption of innocence” and “reasonable doubt.” They are the cornerstones of our system and today twelve people from Pinellas County Florida made the unpopular decision that those concepts are paramount to true due process of law.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Rich is the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

As the defense wound down in the trial of Casey Anthony speculation raged concerning her possible appearance on the witness stand. TV legal analysts debated the wisdom of offering her as a witness and whether it was necessary. All agreed that lead defense counsel, Jose Baez, made promises to the jury in his opening statement that he was powerless to keep absent Casey’s testimony. Baez claimed the death was an accidental drowning and that Casey had been programmed to lie because she had been the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her father and her brother. Ultimately, she waived that right and the defense rested.

Unlike Connecticut, Florida permits opening statements in criminal cases. Those statements are not arguments but rather should be a road-map to the theories of each side and what they expect the evidence to adduce. Further, in every jurisdiction, the trial judge instructs jurors that the arguments and statements of counsel are not evidence and cannot be considered as such. The practical problem, however, is that when a lawyer strongly indicates there will be certain facts proved and fails to offer that proof, that lawyer’s credibility with the jury is destroyed. One commentator referred to it in this case as the defense writing checks it cannot cash.

Baez’ effort to cash that check was limited to argumentative questions to George Anthony as he was continuously recalled to the stand in the defense case. An angry and emotional father vehemently denied the claims of abuse. Lawyers are required by our rules of conduct to have a good faith basis when inflammatory questions like this are posed to a witness. The only basis Baez could have are the claims of his client, leaving her as the only one who could offer any such proof to the jury.

There is a debate among trial lawyers on the wisdom of a client testifying. Certain defenses demand it, such as self defense in an assault or homicide case and consent in a sexual assault trial. When defendants testify they expose themselves to cross-examination and impeachment. Often times a defendant has a prior criminal record that can only be admitted if he/she testifies. If there are prior sworn statements that are inconsistent that also militates against testifying. But the most compelling reason to keep the client off the stand is that it redirects the jury’s focus from the state’s proof or lack thereof, to the defendant’s believability.

If you followed the trial you would have seen prosecutor Jeff Ashton fillet the defense grief expert on cross-examination. He recited the litany of Casey’s escapades after the child was missing. The list was damning and gave a clear picture of how he would have aggressively pursued Casey on the stand. In essence, putting the client on allows the state through its cross to rehash all of the important facts it had produced, in effect giving its final argument through that examination. Add to the mix defendants who possess a certain arrogance believing they are smarter than everyone else in the room and it is a feast for the state.

The issue could not simply be passed over without an inquiry from the judge directly to the defendant to establish that she is making an informed and voluntary waiver of a known right. Judge Perry canvassed Ms. Anthony to make sure that she had been properly advised and that it was solely her decision.

There was a time in our jurisprudence when the courts did not acknowledge that defendants possess a constitutional right to testify. That right was firmly established in 1987 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rock v. Arkansas. There Ms. Rock had undergone hypnosis to “recover” lost memories leading the trial court to exclude her hypnotically refreshed testimony. The Supreme Court determined that while that may be an appropriate ruling as to other witnesses, the defendant’s right to due process mandated allowing such testimony. As a result of that decision trial courts now routinely follow the example of Judge Perry in this case and conduct an inquiry directly of the defendant. Representations by her attorney, alone, that she waives that right would only lead to a new trial in the event of a conviction.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Rich is the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

The Judicial Department announced this week plans to expand its pilot program allowing court proceedings to be televised. Under the new rule criminal trials that do not involve sexual assaults or juveniles may be televised upon petition by media addressed to the administrative presiding judge and the trial judge. The Judges have determined that expanding the number of televised proceedings will increase the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial. In this age of instant cyber communication public trial means more than an open courtroom.

With televised trials come the inevitable legal analysts. They run the gamut from the experienced litigators with insightful comments to the yellow journalism and hysterics that have become the hallmarks of some notable TV lawyers. I have to confess I spent a great many days in the studios of then CourtTV as a guest commentator along with some appearances on Good Morning America and other network programs. Typically on CourtTV snippets of the trial were broadcast followed by Q & A with the host and the guests.

In my early ventures I attempted to be professorial, describing nuances of the law, gauging my observations more to an audience of lawyers rather than the general public. I soon realized that viewers were looking for “gotcha” type comments. This is entertainment, not law school. I enjoyed the repartee with the various hosts, especially Ashleigh Banfield. Ashleigh was the only non-lawyer among the CourtTV hosts but she brought the perspective of the jury to the discussion. CourtTV morphed into TruTV, an amalgam of realty TV with some trial coverage in its In Session segments.

I’ve spent the last two weeks home recuperating while the Casey Anthony trial wound down in Florida. Many of the cases I commented on in my TV appearances emanated from Florida, which has long allowed cameras in the courtroom. Aside from the many twists in the Anthony trial testimony we were barraged by an army of commentators, some regulars and some guests. While much of the comment focused on the current witnesses, a number of the legal “pundits” took the opportunity to criticize and at times demean the efforts of Anthony’s defense team led by Jose Baez. I found myself wondering how many actual trials many of these self proclaimed experts had actually conducted. There was a marked contrast in the styles of lead defense counsel, Baez, and the lead prosecutor, Jeff Ashton. Baez, tasked with a tough job, at times seemed less than inspiring while Ashton showed panache and was clearly the more comfortable in the courtroom.

Some of the criticisms of Baez seemed mean spirited. One commentator in particular appeared throughout several days on multiple networks covering the trials. He all but accused Baez of incompetence. What was not revealed by either network or the commentator was the fact that this particular lawyer represented at one time or another several witnesses or parties associated with the case and was prominently mentioned in a complaint alleging possible ethical violations.

Several commentators were attorneys who formerly represented either Casey Anthony or her parents. That alone raises serious concerns. Are their statements based on information they gained from confidential relationships? In the media’s thirst for inside information, coupled with the desire of some lawyers for broad media exposure, is there a risk to the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship by permitting these lawyers to make public comments?

While permitting television access to our courts does allow the public at large to witness the day to day happenings in notorious cases, there has to be strict scrutiny by the Bar of the conduct of legal commentators. Networks need to exercise restraint in the selection of guest commentators. Personal animus and mean spirited comments, while perhaps protected by the First Amendment, nonetheless only serve to paint the profession as charlatans and subverters of justice. The net effect is to undermine public confidence in the process.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Rich is the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

The Florida murder trial of Casey Anthony has taken some bizarre turns in recent days. Rather than the guilt or innocence of the defendant being the central focus, it appears that the tactics of the lawyers are dominating the court’s time. More particularly, it is the conduct of lead defense counsel, Jose Baez, that has drawn harsh criticism from the trial judge, Belvin Perry.

The modern trend in any litigation, criminal or civil, is to allow all sides to understand, in advance of trial. the evidence to be proffered and to be prepared to deal with it. That was not always the case, especially in criminal cases. There was a time when advanced discovery of testimony and expert opinions was not required. Defense lawyers could play their cards close to the vest and surprise the prosecution with late developing theories or defenses.

I recall aiding my dad during the trial of the reverend David Bubar, convicted as a mastermind in the Shelton Sponge Rubber bombing case in the early ’70′s. At that time there was no requirement in the federal rules to disclose in advance that the defense was contemplating raising an insanity claim. As my father cross examined witnesses suggesting that there was something bizarre about the actions of Bubar it became apparent to then United States Attorney Peter Dorsey that Bubar’s mental state was going to be put in question. Bubar later rejected the defense but had it gone forward the Government would have been at a disadvantage.

The rules have since changed and now defendants must file a notice of intent to rely on any such defense and provide expert reports that support it. The prosecution is given ample time to conduct their own evaluations. Each side enters the trial prepared to deal with the complex expert opinions. Surprise is eliminated.

Reciprocal discovery is now the rule in criminal litigation. The remedy for attempting to ambush an opponent with surprise testimony is generally exclusion by the court. The ramifications for defense counsel include not only court imposed sanctions, such as contempt or referral to the grievance committee, but also exposure for malpractice and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The latter can also undo a trial verdict.

The same rules apply in Florida. In addition, Judge Perry, concerned about the tactics of defense counsel Baez early in the proceedings, filed a written order in early January directing Baez to not only disclose all his experts but also to require each to file a detailed report of their opinions. During testimony last week of an anthropologist on the critical issue of the significance of duct tape found on the child’s remains, the judge called a halt. The prosecution objected that the opinions being proffered had not been previously disclosed. Judge Perry stopped the testimony and ordered a deposition of the expert to be taken that afternoon. He also informed Baez that he is considering contempt proceedings at the conclusion of the case. More importantly, he remarked about the possible prejudice to Casey Anthony if he is compelled to exclude testimony should Baez’ contumacious conduct persist.

So what benefit is there to failing to provide the full disclosure? Is it worth the risk of exclusion of testimony or at worst an instruction from the judge telling the jury they can consider defense counsel’s conduct in weighing the credibility of the proffered expert opinions? A woman is on trial for her life. That trial should not include side issues reflecting on either the competence or effectiveness of her attorney. The rules are simple and clear–almost paint by the numbers. If a lawyer is going to contend in such a high stakes arena at least get the basics right.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

I stood in a courtroom today as a jury somberly walked into the box, ready to deliver a verdict on a tragic death that left my client charged with Manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the first degree of an elderly person. He faced up to forty years in prison, with a mandatory five year minimum sentence on the assault charge if convicted.

The clerk took the roll of the jurors, and one by one read off the charges and lesser included offenses encompassed by the charging document, the Information. My client stood silently between me and my partner, shaking almost uncontrollably. It was a Monday morning and the jury had deliberated since mid-Thursday afternoon before being sent home for the weekend. I could not imagine the anxiety my client endured with three successive nights waiting for Monday and the inevitable judgment the jury would deliver.

There was a palpable current of energy that flowed through the room, fed by the expectations of the family of the deceased on one hand and the supporters of my client on the other. The remaining seats were filled with court personnel and curious lawyers. Word of a verdict spreads quickly through a courthouse. It is an electric moment.

I recall the first verdict I had experienced nearly forty years ago as a student intern in my dad’s law office. It was a sensational murder case. Before the advent of unions for judicial employees judges ran their courtrooms by their own rules. This verdict came in late on a Friday night in the old courthouse on Golden Hill Street in Bridgeport. The courtroom held its own majesty with dark walnut paneling and old oak furniture. The bench was ornate, like an altar of justice. The room was lit in part by lights from an adjacent parking garage through giant floor to ceiling windows. The judge was a diminutive man with a large handlebar mustache looking strikingly like the oil portraits of long-dead, old Yankee judges that festooned the courthouse. You could feel the tension; and the release when the verdict of “Not Guilty” was returned told me I would spend the rest of my life in that arena.

I read a courtroom novel years ago that has a great quote that defined a trial lawyer as one who had ” . . . the courage to go to verdict and the guts to hear the jury knock on the door.” I wish I could attribute that quote but I lost or lent the book and the years have blurred the memory of this author’s name. It may sound like a pretentious quote but there is something of the high stakes gambler that is in the DNA of all trial lawyers.

In particular the criminal defense lawyers face the greatest stakes. I don’t mean to impugn my colleagues who toil in the personal injury and commercial arenas, I handle both such cases. The issues litigated there deeply affect their clients’ lives. But the stakes are so much higher when a person’s liberty is at risk.

So why does it take courage to take the case to trial? First, a trial lawyer has to have confidence in his or her ability to know the case and guide the client in the choice– plea bargain or face the jury. The guts part comes in being able to stay committed to the end. It isn’t a blind adherence to a lightly considered position– every good lawyer needs to know when the case has failed to persuade. Rather, it is not wilting under the strain of responsibility. You’ve made decision now see it through.

After more than forty years of watching and receiving verdicts my heart still pounds as the foreperson intones the judgment. I could never muster the courage to jump out of an airplane or climb some lofty mountain peak but this is the ultimate adrenaline rush for me.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

Every lawyer who has ever tried a case before a jury has gone through the experience of trying to read faces of jurors. Whether it is during the examination of a critical witness, during summation or as they shuffle in an out of the courtroom, we all watch intently for some sign, some acknowledgment that we have struck the right chord.

For me the watching begins in earnest on cross-examination. If I am on a roll and think I am scoring points, I stop looking at the witness and look directly at the jurors as I try to drive the blade home. I want them to join me in understanding that the witness is waffling or falling apart. Of course, like every good advocate I’ve drunk my own Kool-Aid and think that everyone in that jury box can see the witness exposed for the liar he is. In some instances I have seen jurors react favorably– a wry, small smile or a subtle nod of agreement– as I press the point home.

Perhaps the most important time for juror watching is during final argument. For the duration of the case we have all abided by the judge’s admonition that there can be no discourse between the lawyers and the jury; no acknowledgment or exchange of pleasantries. Decorum and fairness require that we all observe this Chinese wall. Finally, in summation, we get to address them directly. They have sat as the silent audience to the pageant play we have produced for them. Now they become the active participants.

Every good litigator knows that special moment when, during closing, a juror smiles or nods agreement. The thought flashes, “This one is on my side.” Of course, everyone of us then plays to that new ally. In the criminal case it is that look that says, “I have a doubt.” In a plaintiff’s civil trial it’s the juror who begins to weep quietly, listening to an impassioned plea seeking a large verdict for a severely injured or deceased client.

Then there is the converse; when they show those signs to my opponent or stare blankly back at me as I build my oratory to an emotional crescendo. Nothing is more deflating for the trial lawyer than to elicit no response from this captive audience. It has happened more than once to me and to all of us. When it does I find myself back as a 20 year-old musician again, performing at a college function at a fundamentalist school with strict religious proscriptions. Our agent got this gig for my band not knowing that this particular sect did not allow dancing. As we finished each song our audience sat quietly, no applause (they weren’t permitted to). Every time a jury stares blankly at me I am back in Goshen, Indiana wondering why there is no applause.

Often after jurors retire to deliberate a note is sent out and a request is made to hear testimony read back or have the law clarified. The panel awkwardly enters the room, most times making no eye contact with anyone. As they listen to the read back of testimony we all watch for some sign. Was that a nod and a glance in my direction? Did I sense a smile? Did that juror wink or just have something in her eye? We hope for that little tip off that we are ahead on points or that the juror is fighting for us.

I have had jurors break out in laughter so loud that they could be heard in the courtroom despite being behind a double set of closed doors, only to have them return a guilty verdict in a murder case minutes later. That one I have chalked up to the release of pent up nervous tension from such a demanding task as sitting in judgment of another. I have had them come into the room to render a verdict; all in tears, only to have them acquit my client. I’ve given up trying to read the tealeaves.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

Noted legal scholar, John Henry Wigmore, described cross examination as the, “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” It is the most potent weapon in the trial lawyers arsenal, the principal means by which the veracity of a witness is put to the test in the courtroom. Our Forefathers embodied it in the Sixth Amendments panoply of an accused’s rights, known as the Confrontation Clause: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him. . . .”

Judges that have restricted this right by unfairly curtailing the cross examination of a critical witness have been chastised by appeals courts. Convictions have been overturned when lawyers have been hamstrung in attempts to fairly challenge important witnesses.

It isn’t always the “gotcha” or “aha” moment. Most lawyers will not experience the dramatic and sudden recantation of a witness that is often portrayed in courtroom TV dramas. Sometimes the impact of an artful cross is clearly apparent, but most often it is a precise, surgical splaying of a witness caught in a series of lies.

Lawyers are not born cross examiners. It is an acquired skill; one that requires hours of painstaking preparation. Unfortunately, law schools offer little instruction on techniques. A new lawyer develops this art by watching the style of experienced litigators. Imagine if our surgeons never handled a scalpel in medical school or their residency program. To be effective a lawyer has to know the case inside and out. every document has to be read and annotated for use. Great examiners spend hours meticulously preparing their questions, often scripting out different scenarios. Never ask a question you do not know the answer to is the golden rule of cross examination.

One has to be prepared for a variety of responses to a given set of questions. In the heat of the moment, on your feet in the courtroom, all eyes on the lawyer as he confronts the crucial witness, one has to be able to compartmentalize the emotion that accompanies the battle. The successful trial lawyer has to be able to calmly think several questions ahead of the witness. Too often I have seen young lawyers flounder because they are so intent on asking all the questions they had prepared that they neglected to listen carefully to the answers and react.

The toughest lesson to learn is when not to question a witness.Aimlessly walking the witness through his direct testimony only serves to emphasize it to the jury. There has to be a purpose to a great cross. The lawyer needs to ask, “what am I trying to reveal?”

Perhaps the greatest skill comes from the ability to control the witness. Short answer questions, preferably “yes” or “no” answers allow the lawyer to dictate the examination. Open ended questions like “why?” will destroy that control.

An artful examiner will lead a witness down a path, building on the witness’ inconsistencies and discrepancies with the testimony of others. I learned the art from my father, an icon of the criminal defense bar in his day. His was not the bombastic style of Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men. He had an even tempered demeanor, the classical “iron fist in the velvet glove.” He would allow a witness to embellish on the facts that he intended to expose as lies. He called it walking them down the primrose path. Question after question was designed to entrench the witness in the lie. When he had gone far enough, with the witness comfortably believing he had sold the untruth, my old man would uncork the haymaker punch– that major inconsistency that the witness was forced to acknowledge, often from a prior sworn statement the witness had given. He would tell me all the time, “You have to walk them down the primrose path and then, when they least expect it, slam the garden gate on them.” He had more than his share of “gotcha” moments in the courtroom.

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com

My wife and I have different tastes in television programs. One in particular that fascinates her is Dog the Bounty Hunter, a reality show on A&E that chronicles the exploits of an eclectic group of bail agents rounding up criminals who have failed to appear in court. When the show ended the other evening the late night news then chronicled the saga of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, who is charged with the sexual assault of a hotel maid. Following his arrest Strauss-Kahn was presented before a judge who ordered him detained as a potential flight risk. His attorneys are seeking to persuade a judge that there are bail conditions that can be set by a court to guarantee his return to court to face the charges.

Traditionally, bail is the posting of some form of valuable security to ensure a defendant’s future appearances before the court. The concept stems from medieval England. In 1275 The Statute of Westminster limited the authority of sheriffs to hold suspected criminals. In 1679 Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act in an effort to limit the abuses by King Charles I, who was imprisoning Noblemen who refused him loans.

In this country the concept was first codified in the Virginia Constitution and later in the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which prohibits “excessive bail.” The Judiciary Act of 1789 established that bail was to be considered in all non-capital cases. In this state the right to bail exists in our state Constitution, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to be … released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or presumption great ….” Courts have defined “excessive bail” as that which is more than is required to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court.

In setting bail courts are required to consider a number of key factors: whether the accused has community and family ties; the presence or absence of a criminal record; the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged; history of employment; history of violence; history of appearing in court to answer charges in the past; and the likelihood the accused will offend while out on bail. The least restrictive form is a written promise to appear, requiring no posted security. There are a variety of forms of bonds, either non-surety (where an accused signs a promise that a certain sum will be paid if he fails to appear) cash or surety.

Cash bonds allow the accused to deposit a specific sum with the court, which is then returned when the case is completed. A court can accept 10% cash and the balance as a non-surety promise, a vehicle rarely used in this state. The two most common forms of bail are professional surety bonds and real estate bonds. Professional bail bondsmen charge a fee equal to 7-10% of the face amount of the bond and require security for the balance. They then post an insurance-type bond with the court. Real estate bonds are more complicated. They require a title search and an appraisal that demonstrates that there is equity in the property equal to or greater than the amount of the bond. Failure to appear results in the forfeiture of either security. Last the court can set conditions and restrictions on the accused, including surrendering passports, electronic monitoring and psychiatric or substance abuse treatment.

Strauss-Kahn is seeking to be released on a substantial cash bond with electronic monitoring. His wealth and status as a French citizen are actually compelling reasons why he possesses the ability to flee. If he is released the judge should order him to watch Dog the Bounty Hunter in case he gets any ideas about running away!

Rich Meehan is a nationally certified civil and criminal trial specialist and the senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com