This is a follow-up to the issues surrounding Lin Marie’s bail that I commented on in an earlier post here.

According to the18 Pa.C.S. § 5511 Cruelty to animals statute:

“(M.2) PROHIBITION OF OWNERSHIP.– Notwithstanding any provision of law and in addition to any other penalty provided by law, the authority imposing sentence upon a conviction for any violation of this section may order the prohibition or limitation of the defendant’s ownership, possession, control or custody of animals or employment with the care of animals for a period of time not to exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment applicable to the offense for which sentence is being imposed.”

Seems the DA’s office, in their rush to punish Lin and Tiger Ranch for not conforming to the PSPCA practice of killing sick animals, have applied the penalty for a convicted offender to the terms of Lin Marie’s bail. This, in addition to the $50,000.00 bond.

Furthermore, as my dear friend Madras has identified on another forum, following is the PA Code 234 Part C(I) Rule 523 “Release Criteria”

PART C(1). Release Procedures

Rule 523. Release Criteria.

(A) To determine whether to release a defendant, and what conditions, if any, to impose, the bail authority shall consider all available information as that information is relevant to the defendant’s appearance or nonappearance at subsequent proceedings, or compliance or noncompliance with the conditions of the bail bond, including information about:

(1) the nature of the offense charged and any mitigating or aggravating factors that may bear upon the likelihood of conviction and possible penalty;

(2) the defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition;

(3) the nature of the defendant’s family relationships;

(4) the length and nature of the defendant’s residence in the community, and any past residences;

(5) the defendant’s age, character, reputation, mental condition, and whether addicted to alcohol or drugs;

(6) if the defendant has previously been released on bail, whether he or she appeared as required and complied with the conditions of the bail bond;

(7) whether the defendant has any record of flight to avoid arrest or prosecution, or of escape or attempted escape;

(8) the defendant’s prior criminal record;

(9) any use of false identification; and

(10) any other factors relevant to whether the defendant will appear as required and comply with the conditions of the bail bond.

(B) The decision of a defendant not to admit culpability or not to assist in an investigation shall not be a reason to impose additional or more restrictive conditions of bail on the defendant.

Comment

This rule clarifies present practice, and does not substantively alter the criteria utilized by the bail authority to determine the type of release on bail or the conditions of release reasonably necessary, in the bail authority’s discretion, to ensure the defendant’s appearance at subsequent proceedings and compliance with the conditions of the bail bond.

When deciding whether to release a defendant on bail and what conditions of release to impose, the bail authority must consider all the criteria provided in this rule, rather than considering, for example, only the designation of the offense or the fact that the defendant is a nonresident.

In addition to the release criteria set forth in this rule, in domestic violence cases under Section 2711 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2711, the bail authority must also consider whether the defendant poses a threat of danger to the victim.

When a defendant who has been released on bail and is awaiting trial is arrested on a second or subsequent charge, the bail authority may consider that factor in conjunction with other release criteria in setting bail for the new charge.

“Can someone PLEASE explain to me how the new bail release conditions in any way shape or form have ANYTHING to do with assuring that Lin Marie shows up for the trial?

No, I didn’t think so.

THAT IS THE POINT OF IMPOSING RELEASE CONDITIONS. To make sure the defendant SHOWS UP IN COURT.

It is not the appropriate venue to impose “Penalty” on an individual who has YET TO BE FOUND GUILTY in a COURT OF LAW.”

And this is really all about the cats? If the citizens of Allegheny County believe that I’ve got some swamp land I’d like to sell them. Oh, that’s right, they probably don’t have the money now that Jugan’s office has spent money hand over fist to prosecute this case. Wonder how the cost in dollars and manpower compares to some of the murder cases in Allegheny County? I’m sure that the victim’s family members understand how this might be more important than fully investigating and prosecuting a case in order to avoid the plea bargain that put their child’s murderer back on the streets in a matter of years…