Judges often consider the amount of money defendants have access to for bail determination. At the hearing Z portrayed himself as indigent thus it was a factor used by the judge to determine bail amount. However, Z was completely aware, $200,000 had been deposited into his PayPal account for his legal defense. Hal claims t have been unaware of the funds during the bond hearing. The judge is not happy because Z made him look like a fool. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/na...merman-media-hearing-20120427,0,1065819.story
So the judge wanted Z to pay every dime he had access to as bond? Wouldn't that require a bond near $2m to require him to give the bond company $200K for the bond? Sounds a little crazy to me. Why go with a giant bond just to punish people of means? The idea seems to be to suck up all of the persons money before he can pay his lawyers. Not fair.
I don't think you understand the purpose of a bond nor the point of the OP. Z claimed to be indigent at the bond hearing and a defendant's access to funds is a factor in determining how much bond to set. So, if X has $10 million dollars and is accused of a crime, the judge is going to set bail high enough to make the defendant come back and not run. Otherwise, a bond that doesn't cause any financial hardship mean people would skip bail much more frequently.
No comment on Z's dishonesty at the hearing? Not surprised. The fact the judge wants more info means he is not happy. If the money didn't matter the judge wouldn't ask for more info.
