address whether conditions could be imposed to make defendant bailable. The court noted that defendant has a “long history of sexual offenses” and used his home “to facilitate his proximity to his target victims” of young girls. The court found that defendant appeared to suffer from compulsive and antisocial conduct that endangered the public. The court also noted that “there remains a moderate risk of flight” if defendant were released on bail and noted that defendant had allegedly stated that he “could not go back to jail.” For all of these reasons, the court did not believe that the proposed conditions of release “or any other conditions of release would be effective,” and the court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying bail. See Gardner, 167 Vt. at 601, 709 A.2d at 500 (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 The only potentially significant
holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense holding that the burden however will be on the defendant to satisfy the court that he can secure the services of an attorney only if assets subject to the freeze order are released holding that in the asylum context the bia must provide an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioners situation citation and internal quotation marks omitted holding that it is not holding that in a  7553 analysis it is entirely appropriate for the court to deny bail unless it is fully convinced that the defendant will abide by the conditions that would be imposed if defendant were released quotation omitted