This is the outcome of “Big Mike’s” hearing.
Official Document from the Manchester District Court.

State of New Hampshire v. John Doe
#10-CR-508 (290746C)

On January 19, 2010, the Court took an overflow arraignment from courtroom 201 in an effort to try and prevent the session going into the afternoon. The individual before the Court was identified only as “John Doe.”

The defendant elected to enter no plea and pursuant at District Court Rule 2.4, the Court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. The defendant was offered the opportunity to apply for councel and elected not to apply as he believed it not to be necessary.

The State asked the Court to set bail on the assult charge in the amount of $5,000.00 cash or surety. The basis of this request was to assure the defendant’s appearance at trial. The prosecutor’s position was the the individual had yet to provide the police with a name, date of birth, social security number, and address as a component of the booking process. Therefore, the prosecutor reasoned, without a basis to identify the individual the state was without ability to apprehend the individual should he default on his trial date of April 5, 2010. The defendant offered no substantive argument but claimed that he had submitted to some of the processing.

There is a presumption that an individual charged with a class A misdemeanor will be released on personal recognizance bail. The theory behind personal recognizance bail is a contract where the defendant promises to appear for trial and if he does not, he will pay the Court a set sum of money. Inherent in this contract is that the individual is known or his identity is ascertained. Without such information, the contract could not be enforced. Where this defendant has yet to comply with the booking process so that his identity can be ascertained, the Court can have no reason to belive that execution of a personal recognizance bond constitutes a valid and enforceable contract.

Consequently, in the context of this case, the Court finds personal recognizance bail is not warranted.

The Court sets bail at $5,000.00 cash. Should this individual elect to answer the booking questions so that his identity be confirmed, then the entire rationale for the prosecutor’s request for cash bail would collapse. Therefore, if this individual elects to do so, th Court would reduce the bail to personal recognizance and if a motion to amend the bail is filed, either with the assent of the State or an affidavit of compliance with this condition, the Court would convert the bail to a personal recognizance bond.

January 19, 2010
Judge William H. Lyons