Todd Ritter – Court Doesn’t Conflict Out, Then Issues PR Bond

Am I reading this right? Todd Ritter stands accused of criminal sexual coduct and terrible abuse of a position of power and trust in our community. The abuses allegedly occurred in and surrounding his operation of the Grand Traverse County Jail. Not only does the court not conflict out, but they ordered a personal recognizance bond?!!

Drunk drivers have to post more bond than that. People who disturb the peace have to post more bond than that.

If I were the AG, which I am not, I would motion to conflict the case out to another court because the 86th District Court has already given a strong indicator that they do not intend to be objective.

Please follow and like us:

3 thoughts on “Todd Ritter – Court Doesn’t Conflict Out, Then Issues PR Bond”

  1. Those accused of drunk driving and disturbing the peace are regularly given PR bonds, as are people accused of similar crimes to and of greater severity to those which Ritter is. The default position for bond in most cases is that it is to be liberally applied, and PR if at all possible. Bond is not designed to “pre-punish”. It’s designed to ensure appearance by the accused.

    The PR bond here is appropriate. You’re going to need more if you want your conflict motion to prevail.

  2. Agree – first offenders appearing for minor misdemeanors in the 86th district court routinely have bail set at hundreds of dollars, or at least a hundred dollars. It is a big deal because they do not get to leave custody until that bondy is paid, regardless of the amount. Cases where the final fine is only $50 often have bonds over $100.

    How PR can be justified with multiple felonies, and crimes where there is a victim, defies belief. I guess it is the Good Ole Boy standard.

    What you missed is that Ritter was not subjected to the normal immediate drug screen at the court house. That establishes a baseline which guides future discretionary testing, and also future sanctions.

    No baseline test seems extremely unusual, especially in a case involving marijuana while on duty.

    08/14/2020 BOND SET $50,000 – PR W/CONDS
    08/14/2020 NOT USE/POSS ALCH/DRUGS/MED MARIJUANA
    08/14/2020 MIND OR MOOD ALTERING SUBSTANCE
    08/14/2020 NO MARIJUANA INCLUDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
    08/14/2020 NO NON-PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS
    08/14/2020 DISCRETIONARY TESTING ORDERED

  3. If ANYONE truly believes, we the citizens or his victims are going to get a “FAIR” trial then they just haven’t been paying attention!!! Past HISTORY shows where this is headed!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *