Following a First District Court of Appeal ruling, how Judges set bail in California is going to have a major impact.
In Humboldt County, repeat offenders and "indigent" clients are a norm, not an exception.
A state appeals court Thursday ordered a new bail hearing for a San Francisco man accused of stealing cologne and held for $350,000 bail, a move that could change how bail is handled all over California.
The decision by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco could abolish the practice of using large bail amounts to detain low-income defendants without giving them detention hearings, according to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.
“It means judges can’t set super-high bail amounts for low-income people who can’t afford to pay unless they represent a danger if they are released,” said Tamara Barak Aparton of the Public Defender’s Office.
In a 48-page pleading, the district court ordered a new bail hearing for 64-year-old Kenneth Humphrey. Humphrey can’t afford the $350,000 bail and has languished in San Francisco county jail since he was arrested May 23 on suspicion of stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne
http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2018/01/courts-game-changing-decision-on-bail-based-on-sf-mans-case/
In setting bail, the trial judge refused to ignore those long-ago convictions as urged by Humphrey’s counsel, and also noted Humphrey’s longtime drug addiction. He did, however, not set bail at $600,000, as the prosecutor asked and was permissible under the court’s standard bail schedule, but instead reduced it to $350,000, without asking about or making findings on Humphrey’s ability to pay, his likelihood of returning for trial, or the availability of workable alternatives to requiring money bail.
On Jan. 25, the appeal court, in a 48-page ruling (In re Humphrey), said the trial court had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by setting the high bail amount without considering the defendant’s circumstances, including his ability to pay, and ordered the trial court to grant a new bail hearing, this time taking into account the defendant’s circumstances, including ability to pay. “A defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty,” it proclaimed.
I have requested comment from DA Maggie Fleming, Public Defender Kaleb Cockrum and Humboldt Superior Court CEO Kim Bartleson. The County and Courts are closed today.
I have previously done posts on this issue.
case involving a San Francisco retiree jailed for allegedly stealing cologne has sparked a legal decision that promises to transform California’s approach to bail, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.
The decision issued Thursday by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco could abolish the practice of using high money bail to detain poor people without giving them detention hearings, as required by the constitution.
In its ruling, the court stated that “a defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty,” emphasizing that setting unaffordable bail is only justified for those who are too dangerous to release before trial. The decision means judges across the state must change their common practice of setting bail based solely on a chart, called a “bail schedule,” which does not take into account a defendant’s ability to pay. The ruling also requires judges to consider nonmonetary alternatives to money bail.
A involving a San Francisco retiree jailed for allegedly stealing cologne has sparked a legal decision that promises to transform California’s approach to bail, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.
The decision issued Thursday by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco could abolish the practice of using high money bail to detain poor people without giving them detention hearings, as required by the constitution.
Further eroding incentives not to commit a crime. Go ahead and do the crime, you'll be back on the street with no time. I guess it has to get a lot worse before the liberal voters of California get tired of being beaten, murdered and robbed.
ReplyDelete