He would be where I live, but even in CA it varies. SF County would be very very slow to act. San Bernardino County might never have let Barry out in the first place.
I always watch trial judges closely, it's interesting how much variance there is, under the law, all in search of "justice."
If more glitches occur, if the Judge doesn't catch on to the game Barry is playing, it'll be interesting to see what the community does with him. I assume he's elected.
In Colorado, the law reflects an understanding that judges must follow the law and that the resulting decisions may not be popular. They are appointed by the governor after an extensive vetting process, then the community gets a vote every six years as to whether they should be retained. It is not a contested election in the sense that there will be a candidate running against Judge Murphy with the slogan, "Nobody charged with murder will get bail in my court!"
Murphy's initial retention election was in 2016. After 2 years in office
he received over 65% of the vote. He will be up for retention again in November, 2022. An agency of the Supreme Court will gather input from the community he serves and make a recommendation as to his retention.
In 2016, fifty-eight district court judges, 36 county court judges, and three juvenile court judges were up for retention election. Two received "do not retain" recommendations from the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, and one of those was not retained. This seems to be a typical judicial election cycle in Colorado. The system is designed in a way that seems successfully to prevent a single issue from resulting in a judge's removal. Which is wise, IMO.
Of course, a vote to remove in the face of a recommendation to retain could happen, but it seems unlikely.
Comparing California with Colorado may be an apples/oranges thing.
Colorado's recent abolishment of capital punishment raised a legal question whether the Constitutional restriction on bond for "capital" cases is still enforceable. This is unique to Colorado AFIK.
IMO, BM's addition of a prominent Colorado appellate lawyer to his defense team was a sign that he expected the court to deny bond and was preparing to argue this issue in a petition for Supreme Court review. Judge Murphy pulled the rug out from under that plan by granting bond. That wasn't the basis for Murphy's ruling, but the question he avoided will certainly be raised by every future defendant charged with First Degree Murder, who is denied bail. It's anyone's guess how the Colorado Supreme Court will rule.
My point is, we could have found ourselves with BM released under a new Colorado precedent, holding that all defendants are entitled to bond. Or worse, a Supreme Court ruling reversing the trial court's ruling that bail is denied because even in this no-body case, "proof is evident or. the presumption is great."
I don't like bond for people charged with an offense that could put them in prison for life. But judges have to base their rulings on the law as it is, not as I would wish it to be. MOO.
= no bat charge.
