Police in Scranton Pennsylvania are currently holding a kidnap victim against her will, to ensure th

Source

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.

Ok....

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

I, um....

This can't be legal.... someone please tell me this isn't legal?

a reply to: onequestion

I'm thinkin' Not Legal!
I was reading the article, and kept waiting to read, Ok guys, this is a joke.

a reply to: onequestion

Ok I get that in most states they make domestic a state issue and make charges on one person mandatory, and I agree with that, but to incarcerate someone to force them to be present at a trail? What the heck is going on!
If she doesn't want to testify then she doesn't want to testify. It would be nice if she did to get that boyfriend behind bars, but don't they already have enough for that with the kidnapping and bruises?

Sadly I think it is legal in "the land of the free" to hold people termed "hostile" witnesses on remand until trial in case they run of.

a reply to: onequestion

The article answers that, but I'm sure it has always been that way.

From a source that biased and without knowing the entire story, it's hard to say if it is right or wrong. I'd double check anything from that site and look at other sources. They may have solid reason and it may even be in this persons best interest.

Odd they call it "Free Thought" How can hatred of authority and a system of laws foster free thought? I tend to avoid hate sites for facts.

As crazy as this sounds, this isn’t illegal. The law allows a judge to set bail for a material witness if there’s reason to believe the witness won’t appear. Bronson can be set free if she posts the $25,000 bail before the September 7th trial date.

Urban Daily

Well according to this it is legal if there is a risk that the witness won't appear. I have no thoughts on this just thought I'd post it.
Not sure how the criminal justice system works in the U.S but the guy should be committed to a mental facility as he is a danger to his girlfriend and others.

So they are holding a victim of a nutbar that will never go to trial because he is insane. He will be remanded to the fruitcake factory and be cut loose when he gets his scripts form the shrinks.

She needs to lawyer up and stick it to Scranton!!! And buy a Glock 40 to protect herself from Mr. Banana

a reply to: mclarenmp4
So judges can force you to appear and testify huh?
Did not know that.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: mclarenmp4
So judges can force you to appear and testify huh?
Did not know that.

I thought that was what a subpoena was for.

I had no idea you could be 'held' captive until your testimony. I've got a feeling something will be changed now that this has public attention.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Oh yea. They charges witnesses with obstruction of justice and contempt of court these days. Happens all the time. They threaten people with these charges to make them show up. And with contempt of court they can hold you as long as they want until your are not 'in contempt.' Outrageous I know.

The poor girl probably does not want to relive the ordeal.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: mclarenmp4
So judges can force you to appear and testify huh?
Did not know that.

I thought that was what a subpoena was for.

I had no idea you could be 'held' captive until your testimony. I've got a feeling something will be changed now that this has public attention.

Yeah if your a material or hostile witnesses they can hold you, same in the UK i think.

It was basicaly meant originaly to hold witnesses for high profile organised crime cases were the stakes were high and witnesses would bolt and run from fear, get taken out, bribed, or were hostile and had to be pressured to testify the idea being to imprison them to keep them safe, away from out influneces and stopping them getting a fit of corwadness and running. But like most powers handed over to goverments for what was ment for 'extreme" cases its now being rashly used in everyday cases.

So you're a kidnapping victim, all shocked and stuff.

Now you're in indefinite police custody because you might not give testimony.

Complete #.

originally posted by: onequestion
This can't be legal.... someone please tell me this isn't legal?

Tricky one.

From what I know the answer is... “kind'a”

She called them in, and they responded, now she doesn't want to testify, which happens in a lot of codependent abusive situations.

The court can hold you in contempt, for obstructing justice, and treat you as a Hostile Witness. If she refused to press charges they can get her for filing a false police report, and making a false 911 call.

So technically they are not holding her “without charges” for no reason. They are forcing her hand to do whats in her best interest and the best interest of her safety. The court has some legal liability here, if they just let her go, and he kills her, they might be legally liable for not doing something to prevent it.

A material witness (in American law) is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding. The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Bail Reform Act of 1984 most recently amended the text of the statute, and it is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3144. The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has used the material witness statute to detain suspects without charge for indefinite periods of time, often under the rubric of securing grand-jury testimony. This use of the statute is controversial and is currently under judicial review. In Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011), the detainee was never charged or called as a witness, and sued the U.S. Attorney General in office at the time he was held. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that John Ashcroft had immunity because of his official position.

Material Witness

I'm getting to the point where I'm ashamed to say I'm American. They are holding an innocent person in JAIL so she can testify...
I wonder if she is being treated like other inmates, orange overalls, etc etc

a reply to: HomerinNC
Its been going on for a long time, I don't think there's anything new about them doing this.

because aliens....

seriously though, wtf?

oh, she was just kidnapped by her crazy-ass boyfriend...now that we've got her away from him, let's kidnap her some more... ABSOLUTE GENIUS!

seriously, i'd like to see what brain trust thought this was a good idea...

a reply to: Daedalus
I guess its smarter to let her keep calling the police, then refusing to prosecute this guy and staying with him? Eventually that will lead to a Police situation gone wrong where someone ends up dead, or with him killing her, and everyone will be screaming that it was the police/governments fault.

a reply to: defcon5

So is this a state that let's domestic violence victims not press charges? Do they even need her testimony.
I would totally get it, well not totally, if this was a murder charge and she was key to the investigation. But a police call about domestic with her having physical injuries? Why does she need to suffer more.
Or do they need her for the kidnkidnapping charge? Was just thinking about that as that wouldn't be so cut and dry with what the state can do. Still don't like the idea of jailing her for it. She better be treated like a quest not an inmate.

a reply to: defcon5

um...he's in jail at the moment. and i think it's safe to say they have enough evidence to convict him without her testimony, so i'd say she's out of danger, and that the possible scenario you describe isn't really likely to happen. if they NEED her testimony, she could have been placed under house arrest, or put up in a hotel with a guard, or been fitted with a tracking anklet.....no need to stick her in a cell.

so again, i'd love to know what brain trust thought kidnapping her again was a good idea...