I think the issue of interest is how it is just that he's been confined to his home for over a year while waiting to be tried for a contempt misdemeanor for which you could face a maximum of 6 months in jail. Why is he such a greater flight risk than thousands of defendants facing much more serious felony charges who are released on bail?
At what point is a judge actually limited from doing whatever they want? is "the law" just balancing tests a judge can put their finger on to lead to their desired outcome? Or is it something that constrains private actors and judges alike?
My initial takeaway is that this is an odd series of events. While I don't think the RICO trial or the contempt charge was some sort of massive conspiracy by SDNY to "get" him, the current confinement is odd, overly harsh, and likely vindictive for his noncompliance in the Kaplan trial
I find it strange to consider the non-compliance to be necessarily intentional. That's a lot of crap to have to produce/refute and we know his legal team was scant. could answer why the appeal didnt happen
@mahasim, doesn't "if I could get away with it" kind of miss the point? We're assessing the objective risk that he will try to flee, so shouldn't;t his chances of success (which are dismal) factor into this?
@Andromeda that is a fair point. But Donziger--being an attorney--must have seen the tenuous nature of the decision and wanted it reviewed. It was a crucial mistake and his unwillingness to acknowledge it leaves an easy opening for a judge to say he concedes the bribery charge
@Pinwheel I understand the resistance to the notion of conspiracy but when you admit the injustice here it's hard to sever it from the previous trial. If there was excessive use of discretion in keeping him detained pre-trial couldn't we argue it was also excessive to raise the RICO charges in the first place
"Mr. Donziger once bluntly told a documentary filmmaker: “We have concluded that we need to do more, politically, to control the court, to pressure the court. We believe they make decisions based on who they fear the most, not based on what the laws should dictate.”
"The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. That said, Smith can't win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment," she wrote.