In a landmark statement that marks a victory for civil rights and criminal justice reform groups, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that judges must consider how much a defendant can afford when setting bail in criminal cases.
The High Court’s unanimous decision aims to ensure that no one is behind bars while waiting for trial just because they cannot afford to leave bail. And it reduces the role of bail in deciding who will be released from prison by instructing judges to give more consideration to non-cash conditions like electronic surveillance programs and drug or alcohol treatment to ensure defendants can be released safely.
“The common practice of only conditioning freedom according to whether an arrested person can afford bail is unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, according to the court. “We believe that if a financial situation is required, the court must consider the detainee’s ability to pay the specified amount of bail – and may not be able to effectively detain the detainee just because the detainee lacked the means, to leave a deposit. ”
Judges can order a defendant detained behind bars without the option of bail if they believe the person is a security risk. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that judges must state “through clear and convincing evidence that no condition can be sufficient without incarceration”.
The opinion is the culmination of a year-long battle over California’s cash bail system, in which people charged but not convicted of crimes must raise funds to secure their release, often with the help of a bail bond company .
Bail opponents have long argued that the system can mean that poor defendants, who pose low risk to society and are innocent in the eyes of the law, can end up behind bars for months or years for not having enough money, to save. In the past few years, Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, have joined these advocates in a bid to get bail abolished entirely.
The state Supreme Court case unfolded separately from another attempt to overhaul California’s bail system, which voters rejected last November. That electoral measure, Proposition 25, would have confirmed a state law passed in 2018 to end the cash bail system and replace it with a law where judges would decide who should be released based on an assessment of their risk to the public.
Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling does not cancel the cash deposit system. However, it upheld the District 1’s Appeals Court’s “Humphrey Decision” in 2018 that judges must consider a defendant’s means when setting bail and whether they can be safely released without cash. The Supreme Court issued an ex officio review of the Humphrey case in 2018.
The Supreme Court put the Appellate Body’s decision into effect last August after initially blocking it pending review. This move resulted in changes to the legal process in courts across the state, which opponents of the bailout system like the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, which together with the nonprofit Civil Rights Corps, took the case to the Supreme Court, said to be fairer.
The case before the Supreme Court revolved around the detention of a man named Kenneth Humphrey, a retired shipyard worker who waited behind bars for more than a year after he was accused of killing his elderly neighbor in a San Francisco residential hotel for 5 years Having robbed dollars and more of a bottle of Cologne in 2017.
A judge initially set Humphrey’s loan at $ 600,000 – far more than he could afford on bail – after using the San Francisco bail scheme. In this document, defendants are assigned a standard bail amount for each charge and for factors such as previous convictions.
Humphrey, 66, who lives in Vallejo, was released from prison following the appeals court ruling. The criminal case against him remains unsolved.
Check for updates again.
Comments are closed.