Nobody is likely to feel particularly sorry for Michail Sorodsky, the 62 year old Brooklyn one-time physician who has just taken the crown, according to the New York Post, for the highest bail ever imposed.  What exactly he did isn’t quite clear from the Post story, shocking given the Post’s reputation for accuracy and thoroughness.

Despite the painful lack of detail, the story clearly suggests that Sorodsky’s the sort of fellow who should not be allowed to play doctor or get his hands on female patients while the case proceeds.  Fair enough. But protecting the public isn’t the purpose of bail, and he really isn’t that much of a threat to others under the circumstances anyway.  Nonetheless, high bail was set.

Just for the record, neither $1 million, nor $500,000, is what a reasonable person would consider a lightweight bail.  These are some very big numbers in the first place, given that their purpose is limited to assuring the defendants return to court or loss of the bail.  Notably, there are no factors offered to suggest that the defendant was attempting to flee the jurisdiction, and as bad as the allegations might be, we’re not talking a capital murder charge here.  Nonetheless, matters worsened.

Knowing Ira well, Ira being the only bail bondsman I would want to have a beer with, I am confident that he wouldn’t have raised the bracelet issue if he wasn’t seriously concerned about the situation.  Bear in mind, if the defendant is in the wind, Ira ends up having to pay the full bond amount.  Ira’s a sweetheart, but not stupid.

As if that wasn’t enough, then more alleged victims came out of the woodwork, giving rise to the prosecution adding additional charges.  Sorodsky was arraigned again, and this time bought the big one:

At the re-arraignment, Justice Vincent Del Giudice set $10 million cash or $30 million bond on the new case, which added to the original bail comes to $11 million cash or $33 million bond.

It would appear that the new charges were leveled separately, meaning that Sorodsky now had two indictments against him, or else there would be no way in which the two bails would be added together.  That said, it’s a bit hard to understand how $1 million was sufficient to assure his return to court on the first indictment, but $10 million was deemed necessary on the second.  Two thoughts come to mind.  First, that the amount of bail is so staggeringly high as to be intentionally prohibitive.  Second, that everyone was angry enough with Sorodsky that they wanted to make sure he got a good, hard smack.  As bad as Sorodsky might be, this isn’t the way to deal with it.

The nature of the charges against Sorodsky, presumed innocent still having yet to be convicted of anything, precludes the court from remanding him.  The typical plan B is to set bail beyond his means, thus being able to say with the straight face that he has bail, but he just didn’t make it.  Bear in mind, this happens regularly at the low end of the spectrum, with impoverished defendants being held in lieu of bail of $500, because they don’t have $20 to their name.  Bail isn’t really relative to the crime so much as relative to the defendant’s means.  Whatever amount is out of reach is sufficient to keep a person in jail pending trial.

But the issue of exorbitant bail, as the Constitution prohibits, is invariably tested at the high end of the spectrum.  And as one would suspect, it’s usually tested by ugly defendants under ugly circumstances like Sorodsky’s.  While there’s too little information on what is meant by tampering with the bracelets, whether this was an effort to remove them or just somehow adjust them for greater comfort, to comprehend whether this reflects a threat of flight, it’s not really a critical point.  First, the bracelet was imposed for the reduction of bail from $1 million to half a mil, and even if the bracelet condition was changed, the bail would have reverted back to its original amount. 

Moreover, Ira Judelson is a bail bondsman.  If he was no longer comfortable bonding out this defendant, he simply could pull the bond and go home.  Ira was under no duty to bond out Sorodsky once the rules of the game were changed.  In essence, the bail bondsman is a secondary check on the reliability of a defendant to comply with the conditions of his release, to return to court as directed and to commit no crimes while out.  After all, the last thing a bondsman wants to do is pay the bond.  He’s more inclined to scrutinize the defendant’s compliance than a judge, since he’s the one who pays the freight.

That additional victims appeared is similarly a difference without a distinction.  There were eight alleged victims in the initial indictment.  That’s more than enough to make a fellow flee if that’s his intention.  Whether it’s eight or more (and the story neglects to mention how many additional victims showed up), the numbers reach the point of icing on the cake, not a new or different cake.  Moreover, while the Post also neglects to mention what sort of “abuse” Sorodsky is alleged to have committed, it seems fair to suspect that it was a touching rather than rape. This isn’t mention to trivialize the conduct, but to consider the risk of his presence in the community and the penalty for the crime.

By upping the bail to the astronomical number of $11 million, Judge Del Giudice has brought the issue to the fore:  Should Michail Sorodsky be denied bail, because imposition of bail of this magnitude is, without a doubt, a sham and effectively remand under circumstances where remand is facially inappropriate? 

No matter what your feelings about the allegations against Sorodsky, the answer must be no.  Excessive bail is no bail, whether for the impoverished defendant or the nasty former Brooklyn doctor. 

H/T Turley