Bail Applications Denied for Those Considered a ‘Flight Risk’
By Hank Russell
The Suffolk County District Attorney found two decisions made by a district court judge “disappointing” after two defendants in two separate felony cases — one for illegal firearms possession, another for child sex abuse — were let go.
In the first example, Suffolk DA Ray Tierney had advocated for $250,000 cash bail for a Brentwood man charged with second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a Class C violent felony. At the time of his arrest and arraignment, the defendant was out of jail after posting bail following indictment on an identical charge in Brooklyn.
Both charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years, followed by five years of post-release supervision.
In the Suffolk case, on April 8, the defendant, a suspect in multiple shootings, had allegedly posted multiple videos to his personal social media page displaying a firearm from his residence in Shirley. Following an immediate investigation by members of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office’s Gang Task Force and Suffolk County Police Department’s Gun Crime Reduction and Intelligence Units, members of law enforcement executed an emergency search warrant at the Shirley residence from where the defendant had allegedly posted the videos.
Upon execution of the search warrant, members of law enforcement recovered two firearms, including a loaded 9-millimeter pistol which appeared to be the same firearm that the defendant had allegedly posed with in his social media posts. Also with him at the time of his arrest were five other defendants, one of whom being a prior violent felon who himself was on probation for a prior weapons-related conviction.
On April 10, the defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint before Suffolk County District Court Judge John B. Zollo. The District Attorney’s Office, recognizing that the defendant was a severe flight risk, and had already disregarded release mandates of the Brooklyn court, requested the imposition of significant pre-trial security, via a written, detailed bail application. Zollo, however, released the defendant from custody to pre-trial services without any monetary bail. He was scheduled to be due back in court on April 14.
In the second example, on April 9, Zollo released a father without any securing conditions, after the father was arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with first-degree course of sexual conduct against a child, a Class B violent felony, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 25 years, followed by a maximum of 20 years of post-release supervision. The District Attorney’s Office had requested that this defendant be held on $150,000 cash, $300,000 bond, or $1.5 million partially secured bond.
The defendant had been arrested in Orange County and brought back to Suffolk County to face the charge. The allegations in the case are that, between November 2018 and February 2019, the defendant, on multiple occasions, rubbed his penis on his then eight-year-old daughter’s vagina, as well as additional allegations of a sexual nature. The defendant is the victim’s biological father.
The District Attorney’s Office requested a confidential stay-away order of protection for the victim and the significant bail set forth above. Though the District Attorney’s application was precluded from considering public safety and risk of recidivism, due to the nature of the charges, the severity of the sentence and the lack of ties to Suffolk County, the defendant was properly identified by prosecutors as a serious flight risk. But Zollo ordered the release of the defendant on his own recognizance, with no monetary bail or monitoring. That defendant is due back in court on April 29.
“Measures enacted in 2019, under the guise of bail ‘reform,’ have been an abject failure. New York, unlike 48 other states and the federal system, precludes public safety from being considered in the determination of pre-trial release. Our lawmakers should prioritize fixing this reckless policy before more residents get hurt or killed,” Tierney said. “That being said, both of these defendants also fit the definition of a flight risk, and it is disappointing that the court chose to release them without any means of financial security whatsoever.”
Long Island Life & Politics reached out to Zollo’s chambers. A woman who answered the phone said, “I don’t believe judges can comment on their decisions.”