a.) Facts:
Petitioners were arrested in California. Indictments charged the 12
members of the Communist Party with conspiring to violate the Smith Act.
Upon their arrest, bail was fixed for each in varying amounts ($2,500;
$7,500; $75,000; and $100,000). Following his arrest in Southern
District of New York, petitioner Schneiderman moved to have his bail
reduced before his removal to California. It was reduced to $50,000.
Govn moved to increase bail of other petitioners. Bail was fixed in
Southern District of California in the uniform amount of $50,000 for
each petitioner. P’s moved to reduce bail claiming it was excessive
under 8th Amendment. In support of their motion, they
submitted statements as to their financial resources, family
relationships, health, prior criminal records, etc. Govn proffered a
certified record showing 4 people previously convicted under the act had
forfeited bail but did not proffer any proof of relationship between
those 4 and the petitioners.
b.) Proc Disposition: Trial court denied defendant’s motion to reduce bail.
c.) Issue:
whether bail fixed at $50,000 based on the character of the offense and
forfeiture of bail by other defendants in separate proceedings is
excessive in light of the crime charged.
d.) Held: Yes
e.) Rule: Under the 8th
Amendment, bail must be reasonably fixed to ensure a defendant will
appear at trial based on the specific facts of the crime charged and not
the character of the crime.
f.) Rationale: “federal law has unequivocally provided that a person arrested for a non-capital offense shall
be admitted to bail.”Defendants have a right to freedom before
conviction to prepare a defense. It is conditioned about the accused
giving adequate assurance that he will stand trial and submit himself to
sentence if found guilty. The function of bail is limited to assurance
that the defendant will appear to face the charges. Bail set above an
amount reasonably likely to assure appearance is excessive in light of
the 8th amendment. Thus, the reasonableness of the bail must be determined on a case by case basis.
g.) Application:
The bail for each petitioner has been fixed in a sum much higher than
that usually imposed for offenses with like penalties, and the govn
offered no factual showing to justify such action in this case. The
government is essentially asking the courts to depart from the norm by
assuming that without the introduction of evidence, each petitioner is a
pawn in a conspiracy and will flee the jurisdiction at their superior’s
command. To infer this based solely on the indictment sans factual
evidence is arbitrary.
5.) Notes:
a.) #7 on page 773 – an indigent has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel at all critical
stages of a criminal prosecution. However, the Supreme Court has never
held that the initial appearance before a magistrate – when pretrial
release decisions are made – is such a critical stage.
b.) #8 on page 773-74 – Bail theory is based on the assumption that a defendant has property or assets. Bandy v. U.S. (U.S. 1960) “It would be unconstitutional to fix excessive bail to assure that a defendant will not gain his freedom. Stack v. Boyle.
Yet in the case of an indigent defendant, the fixing of bail in even a
modest amount may have the practical effect of denying him release.”
(Justice Douglas). Interestingly enough, no pretrial release system has
ever been invalidated on the ground that non-indigents can pay for their
freedom but indigents can’t.
6.) Class notes:
a.) Stack v. Boyle
shows that the govn can have other legitimate interests aside from
securing appearance, but the amount has to be reasonable in light of the
purpose of the bail.
(1) What kind of consideration did the Court make?
b.) Presumption in Florida is that everyone should be released with the least onerous burdens of release conditions.
(1) Pugh v. Rainwater,
557 Fed. 2d. 1189 – case that looks at our bond scheme & says that
the bail scheme in Florida would be unconstitutional unless it obligated
the judge to prefer less onerous financial burdens to money bails.
c.) Are there exceptions? Do we always have to release people?
(1) If you can show that you wouldn’t be able to secure the appearance or if the public safety was at risk (18 USC 3141)
(2) Florida – preventive :
(a) Fugitives from justice – if you’re wanted in another jurisdiction, you can be held.
(b) If the possible sentence is life in prison or death
(c) Most pretrial detentions
= when there are no conditions which can reasonably protect the safety
from physical harm, assure appearance of defendant, and assure the
integrity of the CJS
No comments:
Post a Comment