Statutes Should Not Allow for Restricting How A Bail is Posted— Defendants Should Have a Fundamental Right to Choose How to Post Bail
Judges should not impose di erent bail amounts, higher or lower, depending on how a defendant or third-party indemnitor chooses to post bail. In many states, courts have the power to impose cash-only bonds, which deprive the defendant of the right, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, to enter into an indemnity contract for bail or to post property.
Instead, the bail should be set in an appropriate amount, and a defendant may then select from cash, property or surety. As noted, there should be no unsecured and/or 10% to the court bonds—the court should make a decision as to whether a secured bond is necessary, and if not the person is released on their own recognizance. If the state has an interest in restricting that choice, a prosecutor should have to make a showing on the record that a particular method of posting bond is necessary, and a judge should have to sign on o on that request.
Download the 4th Generation of Bail Reform...
4th Generation of Bail Reform
|The 4th Generation of Bail Reform||Thirty four years after the federal government embarked on this grand risk-based bail experiment, an experiment which no one thought constitutional at the time, it is now time instead for a fourth generation of bail reform. One that returns the American bail system into what it is supposed to be. A bail bond which is solely based on the defendant’s appearance in which judges set appropriate bail that balances the rights of the victim of crime, the person accused of the crime, and the people who seek to prosecute the accused.||5.22 mb||11-21-2018||DownloadPreview|