Justices Slash Luster’s $10-Million Bail

In an unprecedented move, an appellate court Friday reduced bail for a wealthy Mussel Shoals man accused of drugging and raping three women, ruling that a Ventura County judge violated the defendant’s rights by setting bail at $10 million.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura issued its decision less than 24 hours after a hearing in which prosecutors maintained that Andrew Luster would likely take advantage of his family’s millions and flee the country if bail were lowered.

But state and federal law guarantees defendants a right to reasonable bail, and the justices concluded that the $10 million set by the lower court is not reasonable.

Instead, the justices set bail at $1 million and ordered the defendant to submit to house arrest, drug tests and random searches by law enforcement if he posts bail. He must not contact any of the alleged victims, the court ruled, and his passport is to be held by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department.

The ruling means Luster, who turned 37 Friday, could get out of the Ventura County Main Jail as early as this weekend.

“He is just ecstatic,” said Santa Monica attorney Roger Jon Diamond, who read the ruling to his client over the phone. “He just yelled and screamed with joy. He said it was the greatest birthday present he could ever have.”

The ruling marked the first time the appellate division has overturned a judge’s decision about bail. The division, which was created in 1982, covers Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

And the justices took another unusual step Friday by setting bail for Luster themselves, rather than sending the case back to the Superior Court.

In the ruling, Associate Justice Kenneth Yegan said the lower court had “ample opportunity to set reasonable bail and has not done so.”

As a result, he wrote, “we exercise our own powers and set reasonable bail with conditions consistent with the United States and California constitutions.”

Ventura County prosecutors have 10 days to file an appeal before the California Supreme Court, but said Friday they have not decided whether to fight the decision.

Luster, a great-grandson of cosmetics magnate Max Factor, was arrested in July on suspicion of drugging and raping three women at his Ocean Avenue home.

The arrest came after a 21-year-old Santa Barbara woman told authorities that Luster sedated her with a date-rape drug known as GHB, or gamma hydroxybutyrate, and sexually assaulted her.

*

During a search of the home, detectives found vials of a liquid that they suspect is GHB. They also found homemade videos of sedated or unconscious women whom they suspect may also have been assaulted by him.

After Luster’s arrest, a second alleged victim was identified based on one of the videotapes, and a 27-year-old former girlfriend told authorities that she also was drugged and raped by the defendant.

Luster was charged with 50 criminal counts, including 19 counts of rape of an intoxicated person. At the prosecution’s request, Judge Art Gutierrez set bail at $10 million.

Defense attorneys sought a bail reduction but were twice denied. Luster’s lawyers then filed a writ to the appellate court.

Two months ago, the justices issued an order instructing the Superior Court to either lower bail or explain at Thursday’s hearing why it should not be reduced.

*

In the opinion issued Friday, Yegan explained that judges are supposed to consider the seriousness of the charges, the defendant’s prior criminal record and ties to the community when setting bail.

In this case, Yegan wrote, the sexual charges are serious. But they do not involve weapons or recent threats of violence against the victims.

Furthermore, the unanimous opinion states, Luster has no criminal record and has significant ties to the community. He owns his own home and has two children, ages 5 and 9, in Pacific Palisades.

“The people claim [Luster] is a multimillionaire, owns property in foreign countries and is a flight risk,” Yegan wrote. “These claims are not supported by the record.”

Yegan also stated that prosecutors “misread” financial documents that suggested the defendant was a beneficiary of a $31-million trust.

The amount of the defendant’s wealth was debated before the court during oral arguments Thursday.

The bail set in Luster’s case was 20 times the standard amount set in sexual assault cases, the justices wrote, and clearly disproportionate.

“In our collective 100-plus years of legal experience,” the justices wrote, “we have never seen such a bail setting. There may be instances where $10 million would be appropriate. This is not one of them.”