[defendant] is currently charged with are, by themselves, punishable by life imprisonment, because of his number of prior felony convictions, 13 V.S.A. § 11 is applicable and any one of the felony charges against him does implicate the prospect of life imprisonment.” ¶ 3. The trial court therefore held that, given the applicability of the habitual offender statute, defendant faced several charges punishable by life imprisonment, triggering an analysis under 13 V.S.A. § 7553, rather than the traditional analysis under § 7554. Defendant challenges the trial court’s invocation of § 7553, and defendant correctly notes that an analysis under § 7553 is more likely to lead to the denial of bail than an analysis under § 7554. See State v. Blackmer, 160 Vt. 451, 458, 631 A.2d 1134, 1139 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, had the trial court erred in analyzing
holding that there is a presumption against bail in extradition cases holding that there is no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal however once a state makes provisions for such bail it may not deny it arbitrarily or unreasonably holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust holding that in  7553 cases where the evidence of guilt is great the constitutional right to bail does not apply and the presumption is switched so that the norm is incarceration and not release holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records