THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 8, 1996 TAG: 9607080047
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 97 lines
The Circuit Court has begun cracking down on bail bondsmen after two judges found sloppy record-keeping and possible violations by several bondsmen.
As a result, one bondsman has been suspended. The court will be tightening rules to ensure others have enough collateral, don't bond out too many suspects and pay for those who miss court dates.
In general, Norfolk's nine Circuit Court judges will more closely supervise their 52 bondsmen. There was little supervision in the past.
The crackdown follows two judicial reviews, the first in April following a complaint from a suspended bondsman. The judge who conducted the first review, Luther C. Edmonds, found widespread violations. He was so alarmed that he asked the state Supreme Court to conduct an independent review. The court declined.
However, a second circuit judge, Charles E. Poston, did a follow-up review and found poor record-keeping but no widespread violations.
Poston and other judges are writing new rules to ensure that bondsmen either have enough money or real estate to pay for defendants who miss court dates after bonding out of jail.
The new rules may be ready by the end of summer.
Bail bondsmen play a key role in the justice system. They post collateral - usually cash or real estate - to guarantee that criminal defendants will show up in court. Typically, a defendant pays a bondsman 10 percent of the bond. If the defendant does not appear, the bondsman is liable to the court for the full amount.
Bonding is a lucrative but risky business for bondsmen and the court. If a bondsman issues too many bonds without enough collateral, the court can be stuck with no defendant and no money when suspects don't show up for court appearances.
In that case, the bondsman can be suspended, but it depends on how closely judges and clerks monitor them. In the past, Norfolk court files were so spotty that judges could not tell how much collateral a bondsman had, how many bonds he had issued and how many he had forfeited.
Both Edmonds and Poston found poor records in the court files.
``The files have been poorly maintained for years,'' Poston reported in the second review in May. He blamed bondsmen, judges and clerks equally.
Edmonds and Poston would not discuss their reviews, but their reports were obtained by The Virginian-Pilot.
Chief Circuit Judge Lydia C. Taylor also would not comment on the reviews, but said new rules should improve the bonding situation.
``We have probably done a more comprehensive look (at bail bondsmen) than anyone else in the state,'' Taylor said. ``It's a very complex statute.''
In Norfolk, the problem is complicated by court politics and a pending federal lawsuit.
On May 6, former bondsman Sherry D. Battle sued 13 people at the Circuit Court - six judges, four former judges, the court clerk, former clerk and chief deputy clerk - for race and sex discrimination.
Battle, who is black, says the court illegally singled her out when she was suspended amid financial questions in 1994. She is suing for $30 million. The judges and clerks have asked that the lawsuit be dismissed. That request is pending. Battle is not the bondsman whose complaint triggered the first review.
Battle has sued the court before over her suspension, and lost. This is her third lawsuit. Because of the pending suit, judges and clerks decline to talk about the bondsmen situation.
On April 26, Judge Edmonds wrote a letter to the state Supreme Court about the bondsmen. After reading 47 of their 52 files, Edmonds wrote that ``most, if not all, of the bondsmen were not in compliance with the law.''
Edmonds wrote that many bondsmen had insufficient collateral, most were not filing monthly reports and some were exceeding their bonding limit. He also wrote that there was ``an apparent lack of uniformity'' in applying rules and laws to bondsmen. He noted that all four suspended bondsmen, as of 1994, were black.
The report apparently sparked a backlash among Edmonds' colleagues.
In his letter, Edmonds described an emergency meeting of judges on April 12 to discuss the bondsmen issue. Edmonds wanted to act against the bondsmen quickly, but the other judges wanted to move more slowly.
In his letter to the Supreme Court, Edmonds describes the meeting. ``I told the judges that I would not be involved in any cover-up of violations of the (bondsmen) law and urged them to act now.''
He continued: ``My character and integrity were attacked by one of the judges. Upon conclusion of the judges' unkind and painful remarks, I departed from the meeting.''
Edmonds asked the Supreme Court to review the bondsmen, but the court declined, saying the matter was outside its jurisdiction.
A few days later, Circuit Court Clerk Albert Teich Jr. reviewed Edmonds' report. Teich reported that the situation was not as bad as Edmonds believed, and that it was ``absolutely false'' that rules were enforced unevenly.
Teich wrote that the judges and clerks do not have enough staff to act as ``watchdogs'' to the bondsmen.
In the second judicial review, requested by the judges, Poston proposed that each bondsman update his file and complete monthly reports. He also recommended suspending two bondsmen who have inadequate collateral or unpaid bond forfeitures.
One was eventually suspended; the other paid his forfeited bonds.
Poston noted that eight bondsmen had been suspended before the current crackdown - two whites and six blacks; one woman and seven men. Since then, one additional white male bondsman has been suspended.
KEYWORDS: BONDSMEN REVIEW by CNB