Judge Fliescher Lays Down the Law: Teen Defendant Denied PR Bond After Missing Court 3 Times скачать в хорошем качестве

Judge Fliescher Lays Down the Law: Teen Defendant Denied PR Bond After Missing Court 3 Times

#JudgeFliescher #CourtroomDrama #BondHearing #DeniedPRBond #RealCourt #LegalBreakdown #JusticeSystem #CourtCam #TrueCrimeCommunity #LawAndOrder #AccountabilityMatters #CrimeAndJustice #ViralCourt #CourtroomClips. In this intense courtroom moment, Judge Fliescher delivers a firm but revealing lesson on accountability, bond conditions, and real‑world consequences. The hearing begins with bond testing requirements being reinstated for Mr. Frener, including drug testing twice a week and mandatory anger management counseling, showing how judges use compliance as a path toward future relief — not punishment alone. The tension escalates when Oscar Cruz Hernandez fails to appear for court-ordered bond testing, with his mother claiming a hospital emergency. Judge Fliescher demands proof, highlighting how repeated hospital excuses raise red flags in bond compliance cases. The most dramatic moment unfolds when Mr. Osborne, a high school student charged with assault bodily injury, faces the judge after missing court three separate times. Despite previously being offered a dismissal through a PTI agreement, Judge Fliescher refuses to issue a PR bond, citing flight risk and lack of accountability. Instead, the judge orders him into custody with a $10,000 bond, making it clear that ignoring court obligations carries serious consequences. What makes this hearing powerful is that Judge Fliescher explicitly refuses to let the defendant plead guilty just to get out of jail — stating he won’t allow a rushed conviction to permanently damage a young person’s future. The judge leaves the door open for a possible PR bond review the next day, but only with strict conditions like ankle monitoring, curfew, and drug testing, reinforcing that freedom must be earned through responsibility. ⚠️ DISCLAIMER. This video is for educational and commentary purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. All individuals are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. The content is based on publicly available courtroom proceedings and is presented to promote understanding of legal processes and judicial decision‑making