We think, however, that the intent of the law is to protect the public from defendants who have been released from custody. The language makes sense only assuming the defendant is on release. When read in pari materia with the other statutory provisions, the omission of reference to a defendant's custody status in a particular subsection is not significant. Neither party has sought to survey the practices of other jurisdictions. We note that other states have generally interpreted their bail and release laws in a manner consistent with the legislative intent we find in Vermont's statutory scheme.
Federal decisions based on the Bail Reform Act are also consistent with our approach.
The ultimate safeguard envisioned by the Bail Reform Act is the detention of an accused person when no conditions of release will assure the public safety. Courts have not held defendants liable for violations of conditions of release when they are already in custody. We are mindful of the trial court's concern for public safety, but do not think we need to read the statutes as the court did in order to find safeguards against intimidating contact by incarcerated defendants. The State charged the defendant with the latter crime and he was convicted. We hold that the State's evidence did not fairly and reasonably tend to show defendant's guilt on the charge of violation of a condition of his release when, in fact, he was still in custody at the time the alleged violation occurred.