I don't know that much about the third-party custodian thing. It's not something that happens in my state. Interestingly, 33 states afford for third-party custodians as a condition of pretrial release, but Alaska uses it substantially more often than any other state-- perhaps because of geography?? and its visual proximity to Russia ??
(sorry, I couldn't control myself)
I read something about this phenomenon somewhere-- can't remember exactly where. But in AK, well over half of the individuals on pretrial release have to have a third-party custodian in addition to monetary bail-- and in some jurisdictions 80-90% have to have a third-party custodian, so it's not weird in Alaska. (I'm pulling an all-nighter and have consumed a pot of coffee ps so this threatens to be ambling & verbose
I think this Free Mechele FB missive seems like more of an objection to the
home confinement requirement than an objection to the custodial terms. IDK-- but yes it's weird to be taking issue with the requirements
now. I think this seems like a case of someone being unwilling/unable to accept that rules apply to them.:snooty:
So to address your points/answer your questions-- those were the things I thought when I read the post too-- my thoughts:
1) Mechele had to find her own third parties and then the court had to approve them. Technically she could have just one-- and I'm assuming she could have several more than 3. Probably a good idea since 2/3 live FAR away. And the the judge had to intensely screen the custodians, their living situations, criminal histories, etc. before they could be approved.
2) And yes, per statute, the judge has to inform the custodians of all conditions and duties "personally and in writing" because if the custodian violates those terms they may be criminally liable for the violation (in addition to the bond being revoked and/or forfeited). So everyone knew what was expected
before Mechele was released. And everyone agreed. Including, and perhaps crucially, the bail bondsman. In agreeing to guarantee Mechele's bond, he likely considered the third-party custodian condition + home confinement as an additional reason to agree to secure Mechele's bail because that combo substantially reduces Mechele's flight risk, thereby securing his investment. (if she flees, he's out $225,000 minus the old strip club/motel offered up as collateral). And the local strip club owner who offered up his property as collateral
also likely considered the custodian/house arrest condition in his decision to offer up his property.
So, even though Mechele can move for a hearing to ask Judge Volland to reconsider the conditions of her release and Judge Volland could change them, that doesn't mean the bondsman and strip club owner would agree to keep securing her release.
I think it's understandable the prosecution and Judge Volland refused to change the restrictions-- I think her conditions are fair since she stands to lose nothing personally if she flees, has a history of forging identification/ assuming false names, and is again facing life in prison, etc. Personally I think she needs to find some additional custodians to off-set the burden placed on the one local custodian. What do you think?
Here's the
statute that generally governs pretrial release conditions, if anyone is interested