Blake Ordered to Stand Trial, but Is Granted Bail

A judge ruled Thursday that actor Robert Blake had the motive and opportunity to fatally shoot his wife and ordered him to stand trial for murder. Then, in a surprising turn, the judge set bail for Blake at $1.5 million.

Blake, who had been staring forlornly through most of the morning’s proceeding, took a deep breath and cried as Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lloyd M. Nash announced the bail decision.

It was a partial victory for the defense in the 10-day preliminary hearing that ended with the judge ordering the Emmy-winning actor to stand trial on charges of soliciting two Hollywood stuntmen to kill Bonny Lee Bakley and, when they refused, pulling the trigger himself.

He and his co-defendant, Earle S. Caldwell, 46, of Burbank, will stand trial on the charge of conspiring to commit murder.

Nash concluded that Blake, 69, was motivated by “extreme hostility” for Bakley, whom he married in November 2000 after a paternity test confirmed that he had fathered her youngest child.

After Nash’s ruling, Blake was returned to the downtown jail cell where he has been held for the last 11 months, and that once housed O.J. Simpson and “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez.

Blake’s entertainment lawyer, Barry Felsen, called the bail decision “unexpected” and “amazing” and said he believes he can post a $1.5-million bond as early as today or at least by Monday. Felsen said Blake would not live with his daughters, Delinah and Rose, but plans to see them when he is released from Men’s Central Jail.

Blake’s bail will not affect Caldwell’s freedom, according to Felsen. Blake posted $1-million bail for Caldwell and is paying for his legal defense.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Patrick R. Dixon said he will not challenge the bail ruling.

“I think that’s a decision that the judge made. It’s within his discretion. I think he thought long and hard about it,” Dixon said. “He was thinking about it a lot, and he was thinking about it up until the moment he made the decision.”

The judge who will try the case, Darlene E. Schempp, must also approve Blake’s release. Nash conditioned the release on Blake’s confinement to an unspecified residence, under electronic monitoring, at all times while not in court. Blake, who sold his Studio City and Hidden Hills homes during his yearlong incarceration, would also be required to surrender his passport.

In a proceeding that was nationally televised, Nash pointedly reminded the lawyers that the standard of evidence he used to bind Blake over for trial is much lower than a jury would be required to find persuasive enough to convict. Nash said he was “most concerned” about the sufficiency of evidence to support a special circumstance of lying in wait, which has been the grounds for denying Blake bail since his arrest April 18, 2002.

Prosecutors argued that the former star of the “Baretta” television series was not entitled to bail because he is charged with ambushing his wife, a legal special circumstance that is punishable by death, although prosecutors have said they will not ask for execution in the case.

Bakley, 44, was fatally shot May 4, 2001, while sitting in the passenger seat of Blake’s black Dodge Stealth near the Studio City restaurant where the couple had just dined. Blake told police that he returned to Vitello’s restaurant to get a handgun he had left at his table. He said that when he returned to the car, he found Bakley shot.

On Thursday, Nash at first agreed with prosecutors that California law did not permit him to grant bail because of the ambush allegation. “I do not believe that I have the legal authority to grant bail at this time. I feel basically like I am kind of boxed in,” he said, offering Blake’s criminal attorney, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., a last chance to sway his opinion.

The lying-in-wait evidence presented by prosecutors fell short of showing a “great presumption” that Blake was guilty of the special circumstance, Mesereau said, which he argued was necessary to deny bail. Then he made a direct appeal to Nash.

“You would not be violating the law or the spirit of the law if you were to grant reasonable bail to Mr. Blake based on what you heard at this hearing,” he said. “I submit it would be the right thing to do, it would be the humane thing to do.”

Nash agreed, and quickly adjourned court.

“I knew Judge Nash was open-minded, very sensitive and a very honorable person, and he allowed us to reason the issue through until the conclusion,” Mesereau said.

Defendants rarely win in the early stages of criminal prosecutions. Prosecutors don’t have to prove very much at a preliminary hearing, in which the judge must decide only if there is a “strong suspicion” that the defendant committed the crime. To be convicted, however, a defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A trial date has not been set, and neither side would predict when the proceedings would begin. But the attorney for Bakley’s four children said he expects that the defense will try to delay the trial as long as possible.

“I can tell you that no one in the Bakley family wanted Mr. Blake to walk out of court today,” said Eric J. Dubin. “We’re concerned that ... now Mr. Blake will continue with this frail, leave-the-old-man-alone act and push back trial as long as possible.”

Prosecutors contend that Blake had a powerful motive for killing his wife of six months: “enduring hatred,” according to court papers.

“The defendant’s own words have met our burden of proof in this case,” Dixon argued Thursday.

The prosecutor cited three key witnesses -- two stuntmen and a former Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective -- who testified that Blake, using the words “snuff,” “pop” and “whack,” asked them to kill Bakley.

One witness testified that Blake was not concerned about being at the crime scene, saying, “Don’t worry about that; I am an actor.”

But defense attorneys countered that there are no eyewitnesses or conclusive physical evidence -- such as a murder weapon, bullets, blood or gunshot residue -- linking Blake to the slaying.

“What is the evidence that Mr. Blake could have been the shooter? Well, there just isn’t any,” Mesereau argued, characterizing the proof as “a complete evidentiary vacuum.”

*

Times staff writer Hilda Munoz contributed to this report.