Bail is typically raised after a conviction because they presuppose the risk of flight increases. Moreover, bail pending appeal may be greatly increased or even revoked depending on the charge. Before Friday night Sandusky was an accused child rapist, and now he's a convicted one, so his right to bail is affected. Another factor is the judge's subjective feeling concerning Sandusky's chance of success on appeal.
The entire game changes, doesn't it? When a defendant goes to trial, he's innocent until proven guilty. But if he's convicted and makes an appeal, isn't he presumed guilty until proven innocent--and only if he produces new evidence that wasn't available during the trial, or convinces the appellate court that he didn't get a fair trial due to judicial or prosecutorial errors?
