I dont understand this

[Maggot]

Police in Scranton Pennsylvania are currently holding a kidnap victim against her will, to ensure that she will appear in court to testify against the man who kidnapped and assaulted her.

The Free Thought Project
John Vibes
July 26, 2014

Faith Bronson is a 34 year old woman who was recently attacked by her mentally unstable boyfriend Ross Bonaddio. Bonaddio had assaulted and kidnapped her, and was holding her against her will. Bonaddio was allegedly under a delusion that aliens were inside of Faith, and he planned to extract them.

According to a police report, he screwed the doors of his home shut, so she could not leave. After three days, she escaped to a neighbor’s house where the police were called. When the police arrived, Bronson had already returned to her boyfriends house, where they found her covered in bruises.

Since detectives had been unable to contact Bronson, and she had expressed in recorded phone conversations that she did not want to testify, they felt that it would be necessary to incarcerate her.

Now she is being held captive by the police because they are concerned that she may not testify against Bonaddio.

Faith Bronson isn’t under arrest and is not under suspicion of any crime, but she is being held in prison without charges. It was reported by the local newspaper, The Times Tribune that Judge Michael Barrasse set a $25,000 bail which she can pay if she wants to be released before Ross Bonaddio’s trial on September 7th. If she cant pay the bail though, she is to remain behind bars until the court date.

This all began when Deputy District Attorney Gene Riccardo wrote a request to have Bronson detained. Sadly, “the law” allows bail to be set for a witness if there is reason to believe that they will not appear for court. This statute requires the witness to remain in jail until they have made their court appearance or until they post bail.



“I have a feeling we may be able to convince her to do the right thing and stand up for herself,” Riccardo said.

“Based on the seriousness of the crime charged, I’m compelled to protect not only Ms. Bronson, but the community at large,” Mr. Riccardo said.


Read more at WTF!? Police Kidnap & Imprison a Woman to Ensure She Testifies Against Her Kidnapper | The Free Thought Project

 

[Mister Ridge]

Protective custody?

 

[--BLACKOUT--]

To protect and serve... That's what they do.

 

[Veer_G]

Compare and contrast:

County court orders ‘hostile witness’ jailed

The victim of a beating during a robbery of heroin and other items inside a motel room in June 2012 has been locked up in the Lycoming County Prison as a hostile witness, according to state police.

Noor Mujahad Ford, 28, was taken into custody at an undisclosed location last week on a bench warrant that was issued last September by President Judge Nancy L. Butts.

Butts issued the warrant after Ford failed to appear for preliminary hearings for three men arrested on charges of allegedly beating him and robbing him inside a guest room at the Econo Lodge, 2019 E. Third St., on June 19, 2012.

After arrests were made, state police investigators believe that Ford fled the area for fear of his life. The Sun-Gazette has been asked not to publish Ford's home address for his own safety.

By late last September, police had charged Kenneth Martin, 36, and Terence Dwight Forsythe, 23, both of Philadelphia, along with Michael Tyrone Wills, 24, of the 900 block of Clark Street with the beating and robbery. A fourth man is still being sought

Police said Ford knows the alleged attackers.

With the unusual development of Ford's disappearance, testimony for the preliminary hearings was heard not by a district judge but by Butts, who ruled there was sufficient evidence to hold all three men on assault and drug charges.

While three men initially were jailed in the Lycoming County Prison, Forsythe and Martin now are free on bail while Wills remains incarcerated.

Ford was arraigned Tuesday before District Judge Gary A. Whiteman on a misdemeanor charge of being an absconding witness and jailed in lieu of $50,000 bail.

Ford will be ordered to testify at the trial for the three men, which is expected to take place in the coming weeks, according to the lead investigator in the case.

- Williamsport, PA Sun-Gazette, September 19, 2013

Fairly common occurrence with hostile witnesses who might flee.

 

[Slim Chance]

I would imagine this will wind up as a civil suit. I am appalled.

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

Is there a law on the books mandating a witness must testify?

 

[Pat M]

Only on little shit, not on Bengazi or IRS e-mail

 

[40xs]

What about the asshat that beat her? Is he in jail or out on bail?

 

[pawprint2]

She can have a lapse of memory, and have zero recollection of what transpired. She could also state, " I believe my time in jail has effected my memory, the conditions were so bad, and my treatment so poor I've just blanked out- any and all- events leading up to this nightmare". She may also add, that if the state is willing to pay for long and expensive therapy sessions, she may regain her memory surrounding those events but only, once she has been able to place her incarceration (nightmare) behind her, but she 's making no promises. See if the courts step up to the costs!

 

[proneshooter]

This is very easy to understand when one accepts that the legal system is not about justice but about who wields the power around here.

 

[Veer_G]

It's the state's complaint against XYZ defendant, the state representing the interests of not only the victim/s, but of the rest of the state's residents, as well. They look to have their justice, and they don't brook obstruction.

 

[leagle2]

Here is the legal explanation. I am not advocating that it is right or wrong. It is what it is. The woman in the story is a material witness. I do not know if all States have provisions for taking material witnesses into custody but my jurisdiction, and obviously Pennsylvania, does allow the State to petition a judge for a material witness warrant. Upon taking the witness before the court the judge will set a bond (secured or non-secured) to ensure the witnesses appearance in the future. If it is a secured bond and the witness cannot post the bail, the witness will be held in custody or perhaps under “house arrest” with an ankle monitor.

From my experience, in my jurisdiction, the use of a material witness warrant is very unusual (if it were not unusual in Pa. it would not have made the news there). In the few cases, in my jurisdiction, where it has been used it is almost always a result of the witness, after having been served a subpoena to appear and testify, failing to appear. At that point the prosecution explains to the court that the State cannot proceed without this witness, that the witness has failed to appear due to no fault of the State, and the prosecutor then requests a continuance for the purpose of securing the witness’ appearance. It normally would be used only in a serious case. Without knowing all the facts here, I would speculate that the prosecutor’s office has had prior dealing with this defendant and this particular victim in regard to her appearing to testify. Likely the prosecutor had some indication that she might flee and thus acted proactively.

In response to another question, “Yes, a witness can be forced to testify.” A defendant may not be called, by the State, to testify against himself and in some jurisdictions a spouse may not be called to testify against the other spouse (most states have some form of this prohibition. Here in Delaware the spouse can be called to testify but may not testify as to confidential communication i.e. Wife can testify that “John left the house at 9:00. Wife cannot testify “When John returned he said he robbed the bank”). A witness my claim that he will invoke his 5[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment privilege against self-incrimination if called to testify. The State may then grant the witness immunity and the court can force the witness, under threat of contempt of court, to testify.

It certainly seems counter intuitive to lock up a kidnap victim but it must be understood that all criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the State i.e. State v. John Doe, and that the State’s interests and the victim’s interest are not always the same. To be sure, a victim’s wishes are given great deference by the prosecutor’s office but, in the end, the victim is only a witness. The prosecutor has a duty not only to the victim but the rest of the citizens as well. It does not do the next victim’s family any good to hear “We had him the last time but the victim did not come to Court”.

 

[proneshooter]

It does not do the next victim’s family any good to hear “We had him the last time but the victim did not come to Court”.

I'm willing to trade that illusory security for more freedom.

 

[Veer_G]

Here's another PA instance, along with information about consideration of material witness warrants before SCOTUS: Pa. affords reluctant witnesses little protection | TribLIVE

 

[ZombieMonkey]

Here is the legal explanation. I am not advocating that it is right or wrong. It is what it is. The woman in the story is a material witness. I do not know if all States have provisions for taking material witnesses into custody but my jurisdiction, and obviously Pennsylvania, does allow the State to petition a judge for a material witness warrant. Upon taking the witness before the court the judge will set a bond (secured or non-secured) to ensure the witnesses appearance in the future. If it is a secured bond and the witness cannot post the bail, the witness will be held in custody or perhaps under “house arrest” with an ankle monitor.

From my experience, in my jurisdiction, the use of a material witness warrant is very unusual (if it were not unusual in Pa. it would not have made the news there). In the few cases, in my jurisdiction, where it has been used it is almost always a result of the witness, after having been served a subpoena to appear and testify, failing to appear. At that point the prosecution explains to the court that the State cannot proceed without this witness, that the witness has failed to appear due to no fault of the State, and the prosecutor then requests a continuance for the purpose of securing the witness’ appearance. It normally would be used only in a serious case. Without knowing all the facts here, I would speculate that the prosecutor’s office has had prior dealing with this defendant and this particular victim in regard to her appearing to testify. Likely the prosecutor had some indication that she might flee and thus acted proactively.

In response to another question, “Yes, a witness can be forced to testify.” A defendant may not be called, by the State, to testify against himself and in some jurisdictions a spouse may not be called to testify against the other spouse (most states have some form of this prohibition. Here in Delaware the spouse can be called to testify but may not testify as to confidential communication i.e. Wife can testify that “John left the house at 9:00. Wife cannot testify “When John returned he said he robbed the bank”). A witness my claim that he will invoke his 5[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment privilege against self-incrimination if called to testify. The State may then grant the witness immunity and the court can force the witness, under threat of contempt of court, to testify.

It certainly seems counter intuitive to lock up a kidnap victim but it must be understood that all criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the State i.e. State v. John Doe, and that the State’s interests and the victim’s interest are not always the same. To be sure, a victim’s wishes are given great deference by the prosecutor’s office but, in the end, the victim is only a witness. The prosecutor has a duty not only to the victim but the rest of the citizens as well. It does not do the next victim’s family any good to hear “We had him the last time but the victim did not come to Court”.

Looks like you saved me quite a bit of typing. The only other thing that we sometimes see would be in DV cases where the spouse is uncooperative with testifying. The prosecutor can file a motion to invoke a rule that allows the state to use heresay in the courtroom. Wouldn't apply in a situation like this, but that is the only way I've seen a way around having to force someone to testify against their own will when they are a material witness.

 

[Maggot]

Here is the legal explanation. I am not advocating that it is right or wrong. It is what it is. The woman in the story is a material witness. I do not know if all States have provisions for taking material witnesses into custody but my jurisdiction, and obviously Pennsylvania, does allow the State to petition a judge for a material witness warrant. Upon taking the witness before the court the judge will set a bond (secured or non-secured) to ensure the witnesses appearance in the future. If it is a secured bond and the witness cannot post the bail, the witness will be held in custody or perhaps under “house arrest” with an ankle monitor.

From my experience, in my jurisdiction, the use of a material witness warrant is very unusual (if it were not unusual in Pa. it would not have made the news there). In the few cases, in my jurisdiction, where it has been used it is almost always a result of the witness, after having been served a subpoena to appear and testify, failing to appear. At that point the prosecution explains to the court that the State cannot proceed without this witness, that the witness has failed to appear due to no fault of the State, and the prosecutor then requests a continuance for the purpose of securing the witness’ appearance. It normally would be used only in a serious case. Without knowing all the facts here, I would speculate that the prosecutor’s office has had prior dealing with this defendant and this particular victim in regard to her appearing to testify. Likely the prosecutor had some indication that she might flee and thus acted proactively.

In response to another question, “Yes, a witness can be forced to testify.” A defendant may not be called, by the State, to testify against himself and in some jurisdictions a spouse may not be called to testify against the other spouse (most states have some form of this prohibition. Here in Delaware the spouse can be called to testify but may not testify as to confidential communication i.e. Wife can testify that “John left the house at 9:00. Wife cannot testify “When John returned he said he robbed the bank”). A witness my claim that he will invoke his 5[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment privilege against self-incrimination if called to testify. The State may then grant the witness immunity and the court can force the witness, under threat of contempt of court, to testify.

It certainly seems counter intuitive to lock up a kidnap victim but it must be understood that all criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the State i.e. State v. John Doe, and that the State’s interests and the victim’s interest are not always the same. To be sure, a victim’s wishes are given great deference by the prosecutor’s office but, in the end, the victim is only a witness. The prosecutor has a duty not only to the victim but the rest of the citizens as well. It does not do the next victim’s family any good to hear “We had him the last time but the victim did not come to Court”.

Thanks for the in depth explanation. I can understand the "State's" position but I do believe it they ever did that to me someone would pay dearly.

 

[proneshooter]

I cannot recall......

I do not have any memory of......

I am unsure of that recollection......

 

[leagle2]

In 1978 or 1979 I was a prosecutor and tried to prosecute "Rayford" 3 different times for wailing on his g/f (the last time she ended up in the hospital). She'd call the cops when she was hurt and mad but then, in every case, she got "amnesia". A prosecutor would be fired for this today but I told her after the third bout of "amnesia" "Honey, next time he puts you in the hospital, call your minister because we ain't coming". Rayford went on to an illustrious career in pharmaceuticals but, as far as I know, she never called again (at least it never came across my desk). Moral of the story, if you don't want the State involved in your life don't go calling the popo.

 

[EddieNFL]

It does not do the next victim’s family any good to hear “We had him the last time but the victim did not come to Court”.

Other side of the story:

"We arrested him numerous times, but the DA and PD always struck a deal and the judge agreed. Sorry your daughter is dead."

 

[ZombieMonkey]

Other side of the story:

"We arrested him numerous times, but the DA and PD always struck a deal and the judge agreed. Sorry your daughter is dead."

The PD is not involved in striking any deals. They do the investigation and forward charges, if it goes to court they testify. Defense and prosecutor's can come to terms on a deal, yes.

 

[EddieNFL]

The PD is not involved in striking any deals. They do the investigation and forward charges, if it goes to court they testify. Defense and prosecutor's can come to terms on a deal, yes.

Yes, I've seen Law and Order.

PD - Public Defender

 

[ZombieMonkey]

My mistake. I've never seen the abbreviation PD used for public defender, I only see it referred to the POPO.

 

[fdkay]

This is how we end up with "Shall Arrest" and minimum sentences.
Suzy Rottencrotch gets beat up by Mikey Methhead, calls the cops, they arrest him, spend literally hours completing reports, drawing up the complaint and probable cause affidavit, take him before the magistrate have his bond set, Suzy bonds him out and signs a non-prosecution form, dropping the charges.

This will happen three, four or even more times until he eventually puts her in a coma or kills her.
Who gets the blame? The cops and prosecutors because they "didn't do anything".

The hand wringers and do gooders cry about how society must take action because the dumb bitches stay with bags of shit that beat them and are unable to "break the cycle"
I'm sure the DA tired of her filing reports and then dropping charges.
He will eventually kill her unless she is compelled to testify.

 

[DetroitRearView]

This is the result of a society becoming more and more dependent upon government for personal welfare and protection.

This degraded version of the supposed modern day "greater good" argument would be moot if the "victim/reluctant witness" or her family members would have taken care of the idiot themselves. If the idiot was not dealt with appropriately, then the victim/family suffers the consequences.

Choice, consequences, freedom, responsibility.

Personal freedom is the first building block for the foundation of the "greater good" afforded by the Constitution - Yes, it does mean that some people are hurt, even die.

Freedom individually will result in the freedom of the whole.

"The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Smcarroll]

This is for your own good!!

 

[Veer_G]

This is for your own good!!

No more cheesesteaks for you!

 

[40xs]

This is for your own good!!

Son, this is going to hurt me more than it will you.