Mr. Strauss appeared in court the following day to answer the criminal complaint. After the judge read the charges Mr. Strauss’ defense attorneys entered a plea of not guilty.  The judge denied bail and adjourned the case for grand jury action. A few days later Mr. Strauss appeared in court upon his application for bail. At this hearing  the judge  set bail at one million dollars. As a condition for setting bail Mr. Strauss had to accept complete house detention and wear an ankle tracking bracelet. Mr. Strauss complied with all the terms of his bail.  The judge released Mr. Strauss from custody. In my opinion the judge abused his discretion by setting bail so high and imposing punitive conditions when there was not a scintilla of proof that Mr. Strauss was a flight risk or that he would not return to court for his trial. Mr. Strauss did not receive the benefit of being considered innocent until proven guilty. His status as a famous statesman worked to against him.

Even after Mr. Strauss appeared in court the debate continued over his quick arrest. Persons connected to law enforcement argued that his rapid arrest was necessary to prevent him from travelling to France. To make their point they draw an analogy to case of Roman Polanski. Three decades ago California charged Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski with having sex with a 13-year-old girl. At the time of his arrest Mr. Polanski was 43 years old. He pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. While awaiting sentencing he fled the United States for France. At that time France and the United States did not have (and still do not have)  extradition treaties with each other. For three decades Mr. Polanski lived openly in France. Authorities eventually captured Mr. Polanski while he was vacationing in Switzerland. The argument concludes that to prevent another Roman Polanski incident the police had to prevent Mr. Strauss from seeking safe haven in  France.

Experienced criminal attorneys and legal pundits counter this reasoning with a convincing point; Mr. Strauss had not admitted any guilt nor had he been found guilty of the charges. I believe that this point distinguishes his case from Mr. Polanski’s. In Mr. Strauss’ case no evidence existed that he was trying to flee the jurisdiction. Did Mr. Strauss even know that he had been accused of doing something wrong? Another significant  difference between the two cases was that Mr. Strauss worked in Washington DC and Mr. Polanski could make and direct films from any place. The two cases are not analogous on any level. Consequently, the NYPD could have let Mr. Strauss leave while they conducted in secrecy a thorough investigation. The chances that Mr. Strauss would not have returned the U.S. were remote.  The NYPD could not have reasonably believed that Mr. Strauss would flee the U.S. and never return; he had to return to work in Washington D.C.

It came as no surprise to anyone that the grand jury indicated the former IMF chief. On June 6, 2011 Mr. Strauss appeared in Supreme Court to be arraigned on the indictment. The court proceedings lasted no more than 5 minutes and concluded  upon Mr. Strauss entering a plea not guilty plea. Events after this court date turned this case completely upside down.