Judge Smukler revoked Labrie's bail because the St. Paul's School graduate frequently violated his curfew hours, even travelling from Vermont to Boston to do educational research, meet with his attorneys, and socialize with his girlfriend.

On one such outing in late February, he ran into a VICE reporter while riding on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Red Line. The reporter tweeted about the encounter, then wrote about the train ride, which tipped the Concord Police Department off that Labrie was breaking his curfew while travelling out of his home state.

On March 14, Labrie was hauled into court by the Merrimack County Attorney's Office, outlining Labrie's acts of omission and commission, and Judge Smukler revoked his bail on the spot. The prep school grad was lead out of court in handcuffs.

For the 10 weeks Labrie was behind bars, he was not idle. He was using that time to draw up motions against Judge Smukler for revoking his bail, against his original defense team for ineffective council in losing his trial, asking for more time before arguing his state supreme court appeal, seeking a new trial, and hiring new lawyers from Washington, DC, because the Merrimack County Attorney's Office has issues with his current attorney, Jaye Rancourt.

When Labrie returned to the Concord court on Monday (May 16), he was handcuffed and shackled. Gone was the preppy sports coat and black slacks, he was dressed in a bright orange tee shirt and faded orange sweat pants with the large black letters M-C-D-O-C running down the front of the left leg indicating Merrimack County Department of Corrections. His shackled feet were clad in orange crocs.

Gone were the dark rimmed glasses which gave him a studious look. Also gone was Labrie's signature assuredness, cockiness and defiance. In two months of solitary confinement, he visibly aged. He lost the fresh face look, as his face was drawn and his hair was beginning to take on a shaggy look. He appeared to have lost weight. When Judge Smukler announced the reinstatement of his bail, he was stoic and showed no emotion. During most of the court proceedings, he turned his head slightly as not to look at the bench.

The crux of Judge Smukler's reinstatement of Labrie's bail is, that although the New Hampshire Supreme Court agrees with the Merrimack Superior Court judge's revocation of Labrie's bail for cause, the state supreme court justices feel that his sentence would be completed before they had a chance to hear his appeal.

"Based upon our review of the parties' briefs and the record, we conclude that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion at the time it revoked the defendant's bail ..." the justices wrote.

However, the supreme court also noted that even though Labrie violated his bail conditions, that is "not indicative of an inclination toward further criminal conduct" and "the fact that the defendant has filed a motion for a new trial based upon alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the revocation order, if not modified, very likely will have the effect of resulting in the defendant completing the stand committed portion of his sentences before this court can resolve his direct appeal on the merits ..."

The supreme court also took issue with Judge Smukler's handling of Labrie's trial. The justices question whether the "trail court erroneously limited the cross-examination of a witness for the State, who testified as to conversations he had with the defendant immediately before and immediately after the events, upon which the subject convictions are predicated."

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled: "Under these unique circumstances, the court hereby remands this matter to the trial court, with instructions to consider whether, now that the court's revocation order has been in effect for sufficient time to presumably impress upon the defendant the importance of strictly complying with all bail conditions, there is a condition or a combination of conditions that will assure that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to himself or any other person or the community, and with which he is likely to comply, such that release pending appeal might again be warranted."

Judge Smukler took the Supreme Court's advice to heart. He held a new bond hearing and reinstated bail with the added provision that Labrie wear an ankle monitor with a GPS tracker, which will be paid for by Labrie.

"Mr. Labrie said he clearly understood his obligation to comply, he would comply and there would be no issue," Judge Smukler explained. "The Court places its trust in Mr. Labrie and grants bail pending sentencing and pending appeal based on that understanding."

The judge was careful to outline the fact that in the past, Labrie said he clearly understood the terms of his bail, both after his Aug. 25, 2015 conviction and his Oct. 28, 2015 sentencing, and both times he willingly violated his 5 PM to 8 AM curfew to travel to the Boston area.

"It's clear that Mr. Labrie did breach the trust of the court. There's no question about that, that's why bail was revoked," the judge continued. "I am cognizant of the fact that Mr. Labrie has spent two months incarcerated and that may have impressed the importance of compliance with him. But I am not 100 percent sure, that's why I am adding the condition of electronic monitoring with GPS, so there would be no question. ... Trust, but verify."

Labrie's attorney said that his jail experience had a profound impact on him.

"It was very clear his safety was in question," Ms. Rancourt explained. "He's gone through a wave of emotion, from being sad about his situation, being scared, being nervous, being bored at times."

The judge also briefly commented on Labrie's appeal. "In terms of the appeal as I would expect I would not have made the orders I made if I did not think they were legally sound. So I would expect the Court's orders to be affirmed. That's not always the case. It may not be," he said.

"I have been reversed in the past ... I've been wrong in the past ... I've been right in the past," Judge Smukler explained. "But my expectation when I issued the order, that they are legally sound, so the expectation that the order's affirmed and Mr. Labrie is going to have to serve the remainder of his sentence."

The judge did not elaborate when he would schedule a new trial, stating that he would be very busy over the next couple of months, and any of Labrie's court time would have to be planned around the judge's already crowded docket.

Up until last August first, Judge Smukler was the presiding judge for Merrimack Superior County Superior Court. Upon retiring from that position, he became a senior judge and immediately dove into Labrie's high profile trial. Now he is preparing for another high profile trial -- that of Nathaniel Kibby accused in the kidnapping and sexual assault of a15-year-old. The senior jurist has an earned reputation for being "fair, studious, unfazed by the media and unafraid to do the right thing -- whether it's dismissing a case or handing down a maximum sentence."

Labrie's attorney, Jaye Rancourt, is as tenacious as a mother bear defending a wounded cub, even though she is facing issues of her own in defending her client. She is not opposed to confronting a judge or going up against Labrie's original trial attorneys. She has filed motions objecting to the court revoking her client's bail, and a motion seeking a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that Labrie's trial attorneys failed in five ways to effectively defend their client including: failure to subject the computer-luring charge to meaningful adversarial testing; failure to impeach trial witnesses; failure to investigate complaining witness's social media accounts; failure to impeach complaining witness; and failure to object to misstatements made by the prosecutor in closing argument.

She has also found part time manual labor employment for her client, which will fit his curfew and travel limitations. Labrie will continue to live with his mother in Tunbridge, Vermont, a small berg in the central part of the state, which dates back to 1761.

Merrimack County Attorney takes issue with Ms. Rancourt remaining Labrie's legal counsel in mounting his request for a new trial, forcing Labrie to seek new legal counsel and hire new attorneys in Washington, DC. The county attorney maintains that Ms. Rancourt is ineligible because she was a part of Labrie's criminal defense team, headed by high profile criminal defense attorney, Jay Carney, and his associate, Sam Zaganjori.

Carey claims to be "one of the most accomplished and recognized criminal defense attorneys in Massachusetts." Ms. Rancourt was a part of his Boston-based defense team as "local counsel", so the state says there is a conflict of interest in her taking the Carney defense team in seeking a new trial for ineffective counsel.

The prosecutors claim that because Ms. Rancourt was a part of Labrie's defense team, she was privy to attorney-client privileged communications and, because of her involvement, she has ethical obligations to maintain because she was involved in jury selection, pretrial conferences and spoke on behalf of Labrie in chambers.

"I was excused from the trial by motion," she told the Boston Globe. "And I was also waived of my ethical obligation on the record, by the court."

Due to the state's challenge of Ms. Rancourt, Labrie was forced to again seek new counsel. He has hired lawyers from the large law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel to join Ms. Rancourt in his quest to overturn his conviction. The attorneys at the Washington DC law office are specialists in appellate litigation and advocacy. The firm is peopled with graduates from such prestigious law schools as Cornell, Boston University, William & Mary, Yale, and Harvard.

Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline