The DNAinfo archives brought to you by WNYC.
Read the press release here.

Acquitted Man 'Unlawfully Detained' After Bail Hiked on Other Charges: Suit

By Dartunorro Clark | April 27, 2017 7:58am
 A judge increased the man's bail on separate charges after he was acquitted of attempted murder.
A judge increased the man's bail on separate charges after he was acquitted of attempted murder.
View Full Caption
Canadian Pacific/Flickr

MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT— An inmate acquitted of attempted murder last month remains "unlawfully detained" after a judge hiked his bail on unrelated charges following his exoneration, a new lawsuit says. 

Glennie Snyder, 55, who was arrested for allegedly shooting a man in East Harlem in October 2015, has been incarcerated at the Manhattan Detention Complex in Lower Manhattan since the incident occurred, according to the suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court. 

After his arraignment on those charges, Snyder was additionally charged with two counts of criminal contempt for threatening to kill a woman twice during September 2015 and October 2015, claiming she owed him money, according to the suit and prosecutors. 

He was ordered held in jail in the attempted murder case and had bail for the second set of charges set by a judge at $5,000 cash or $10,000 bond, the suit says.

After his acquittal, Manhattan trial Judge Abraham Clott “punitively” increased the bail amount for the criminal contempt charges to $25,000 cash or $25,000 bond, an amount he couldn't afford to pay, according to the suit.

The original bail amount “was reasonably within Mr. Snyder’s reach” and the judge’s decision constituted “an abuse of discretion, unsupported by any statutory authority,” according to the complaint.

“If the bail conditions remain the same Mr. Snyder will likely remain incarcerated for the sole reason that he is poor,” the suit says.

Snyder's lawyer, Aylese Kanze, called the decision “unconstitutional,” citing the Eighth and 14th amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, among other legal precedents, according to the suit.

Neither Kanze nor a representative from the New York State Unified Court System responded to requests for comment.