I reviewed what was said by the state and the judge at her last bail hearing. I'm presuming defendant's "new facts" have to materially alter something asserted in here:
The first part is a synopsis of what the prosecutor said including most of his words, the second part is the judge's actual words:
States arguments:
First addressing counsel’s comments – how we got here – and why the bail was set at what it’s at – case didn’t start as criminal case, started as report of two missing children who are still missing, when Rexburg PD responds they are given verifiably false information by the defendant, so they obtained warrants to search and at that point the defendant is gone, they say it’s a planned move, however they clearly left very quickly as soon as they were contacted by LE, the vast majority of their belongings were still in the apartment, investigation continued, child protection act was filed, order was given for defendant to produce the children which she did not do. Addressing issue that she informed LE she would turn herself in, it’s hard to trust someone to turn themselves in on a warrant when a simple welfare check caused that person to leave.
Now addressing Rule 46 – (ten) factors to be considered in setting bail -
1. Defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition:
Not presently employed so she’s not at risk of losing employment.
Financials - Defendant’s new husband received a substantial sum of life insurance proceeds from death of his wife last October. Obviously those funds provide them with ability to relocate quickly and stay away from Idaho, which we believe they’ve already done.
2. Nature and extent of defendant’s family relationships:
Defendant’s only family here is her new husband. At a bail reduction hearing in Hawaii very recently her attorney represented to court that her husband lived in Hawaii, not in Idaho.
3. Defendant’s past and present residences:
We understand the defendant does have a house here, however the fact of what was represented to Hawaii that they lived in Hawaii shows they consider their ties not in Idaho but in Hawaii.
Past residences – last year is more concerning – since summer defendant has lived in Arizona, Idaho and Hawaii, and frankly circumstances under which she left Arizona soon after killing of her estranged husband by her brother, and the circumstances in which she left Idaho the same night Rexburg police did welfare check, give state serious concern she is a flight risk.
4. Defendant’s character and reputation:
since summer clear and alarming pattern in defendant’s life, three active investigations of suspicious deaths that she is related to – we’re not saying she’s been charged in those and not saying court should treat her as such, however she is related to each of those deaths and it is alarming to the state. Also – defendant tried to mislead Rexburg LE, she tried to convince a family friend to tell LE she had the children, and defendant has history of defying court orders in child protection case associated with this case she refused to produce her children as ordered. In 2009 child custody case in Travis County Texas she was found guilty of seven different counts of civil contempt.
5. Persons who agree to assist the defendant in attending court at proper time:
that’s pretty much limited to her new husband and due to fact that he and defendant left abruptly before we don’t have assurance from that.
6. Nature of current charge and mitigating and aggravating factors that may bear upon likelihood of conviction and possible penalty:
Idaho code 18-401 felony for anyone having a child under 18 dependent upon him/her for care, education or support who deserts such child
in any manner whatever, with intent to abandon. It’s broad because it deals in protecting children. Aggravating factors –
Defendant established residence in Madison County ID with two minor children – those children ended up being reported as missing and defendant left the state without them. – defendant defied a court order to produce the children – one of them is only 7 and has special needs which require medication and medical attention. Both received social security benefits and defendant continued collecting into her own account after last known sightings and continuing into Hawaii. Case law related to desertion of minor child ID code 19-302 this court has jurisdiction over acts of desertion here in Madison and Hawaii. Most aggravating factor – heartbreaking and reason for media attention, the children are still missing. Defendant has not only misled LE in efforts to find children but she has refused to aid in any attempts to find children even before charges were filed. ID code 18-403 and 18-405 – and case law – proving abandonment/desertion is prima facia evidence that the desertion was wilful.
In regards to sentence if convicted and we believe she will be, could face up to 30 years in prison which is certainly motive to flee.
7. Defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, and, if defendant has previously been released pending a trial or hearing, whether defendant appeared as required:
Not aware of prior criminal record but as discussed she does have history of defying court orders.
8. Facts indicating possibility of violations of law if defendant is released without restrictions:
past behavior is best predictor of future behavior. She’s already disobeyed this court’s order and so we have no reason to believe that if she were released she wouldn’t continue in unlawful behavior.
9. Any other facts tending to indicate defendant has strong ties to community and is not likely to flee the jurisdiction:
at this point with her two children missing the defendant’s only local tie is her husband who as of a couple of weeks ago she claimed he lived in Hawaii.
10. Reasonable conditions/restrictions – should defendant be able to make bail:
restricted to living in Madison or Fremont County ID, wear a GPS location device, if she has a passport to surrender it to court.
Conclusion – defendant has established through her own behavior that she cannot be trusted to obey a court order or to appear at future court hearings. Bail should be confirmed where it is, we have no confidence that she will stay in the area and appear for future hearings should she be released.
Judge's remarks:
The court has listened carefully to the argument of both the state and the defense. The court has reviewed in detail and in full Rule 46 of the Idaho Criminal Rules. The court has also reviewed the Idaho Bail Act, Title 19 Chapter 29, specifically under 19-2904 it designates that the court may release a person on his own recognizance or set an amount of bail and may impose any conditions of release. In making these determinations the court shall consider the following objectives:
1. Ensuring the appearance of the defendant.
2. Ensuring the integrity of the court process including the right of the defendant to bail as constitutionally provided.
3. Ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses.
4. Ensuring public safety.
The court has taken all four of those factors into consideration as well as all ten factors under subsection c, under the Idaho Criminal Rules 46. And based upon the argument that I’ve heard here today, the court is going to reduce bail. I’m going to reduce bail to the amount of $1 million. I recognise all of the factors that have been looked at here, one specific thing that the court notes in setting such a high bail amount is that there is a pending court order and to my knowledge there has been nothing set forth regarding obedience to that court order, pertaining to lining the court out with information on where the two children are at the Department of Health and Welfare or at the Rexburg Police Department. So with that bail will be set at $1 million. If bail is posted…