Letters to the Editor: The presumption of innocence isn’t an excuse for no-cash bail

To the editor: Although I agree with much of Los Angeles County Superior Court Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner’s reasoning regarding limiting the requirement of cash bail, citing the “presumption of innocence” is misleading. (“Twelve L.A. County cities sue to postpone new zero-bail policy,” Oct. 2)

The presumption obviously has no basis in fact. It is merely a device to place the burden of proof in criminal matters on the government.

Clearly, substantial bail is a must for felony crimes of violence and other felonies that place the public at risk. It is one of the principal reasons government exists, and government owes its law-abiding citizens this protection.

Reasonable bail or release policies should apply only to those who do not present a serious threat, be it physical or financial.

Michael Bradbury, Ojai

The writer was district attorney of Ventura County from 1979-2003.

..

To the editor: Three years ago, a rich white woman driving around 80 mph killed two young boys who were walking in a Westlake Village crosswalk, according to police. Witnesses said the driver failed to stop at the scene and help the victims.

Charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run driving, she left jail several hours after being arrested because her husband paid the $2-million bail.

She has been free ever since because of several changes in attorneys, legal wrangling and multiple court postponements — delays that only money can buy.

That is what a two-tiered legal system looks like.

Marcy Bregman, Agoura Hills