Home » US Supreme Court declines to take up cash bail constitutionality case

US Supreme Court declines to take up cash bail constitutionality case

by Derek Andrews
0 comment 4 minutes read Donate

The US Supreme Court docket declined Monday to take up the query of whether or not states can impose schedule-based money bail on an indigent defendant earlier than permitting their pre-trial launch from jail.

Bradley Hester originally brought the case Hester v. Gentry in the US District Court docket for the Northern District of Alabama with the help of the Alabama ACLU, Civil Rights Corps and the Southern Poverty Legislation Heart. In 2017, Hester was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia He was held in jail pre-trial on account of his incapacity to afford a $1,000 bail, based mostly on the Alabama bail schedule within the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. In Hestor’s class motion go well with, Hester and his attorneys claimed that the Cullman County, Alabama bail system violated the 14th amendment, as indigent defendants had been denied due course of and equal safety.

The decrease court docket ruled in favor of Hester, enjoining the county from imposing money bail quantities on defendants who couldn’t afford them. Decide Madeline Hughes Haikala in her opinion, said:

The extent of certainty that the clear and convincing proof customary supplies is critical to make sure basic equity in bail proceedings. The detention of a legal defendant in Cullman County and not using a particular diploma of confidence that detention is critical offends a basic precept of justice.

Nonetheless, the US Court docket of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decrease court docket on enchantment, discovering that Cullman County’s bail system was constitutional. Decide Barbara Lagoa, writing for almost all, held:

Below our plenary de novo overview of the facial constitutionality of the present Cullman County bail system, we conclude that the district court docket erred each find that the bail system discriminated towards the indigent and find that the bail system disadvantaged pretrial detainees of procedural due course of.

Decide Robin S. Rosenbaum filed a dissent within the appeals court docket determination, accusing the court docket of refusing to totally analyze the 14th modification implications of the case, arguing:

Briefly, Cullman County’s present bail system unconstitutionally violates indigent arrestees’ Fourteenth Modification equal safety and due-process rights. The bulk opinion avoids this conclusion solely by disregarding the information that the district court docket discovered about how Cullman County’s present bail system operates in observe.

The American Bar Affiliation filed an Amicus Curiae brief encouraging the Supreme Court docket to take up Hester, saying:

The antagonistic results of pretrial detention can final for years. For instance, pretrial detention decreases a person’s future employment prospects, and will increase in pretrial detention charges are related to will increase in county-level poverty charges.

A coalition of authorized students who analysis bail additionally encouraged the Supreme Court docket to take up the case, asserting “This Court docket ought to appropriate the Eleventh Circuit’s departure from centuries of Anglo-American custom defending defendants from arbitrary pretrial detention.”

Cullman County Sheriff Matthew Gentry, who is called within the go well with as a defendant, dismissed considerations over the county’s bail strategy, saying “I’ve needed to speak to mamas, daddies, aunts, grandparents which have had loss due to a no-bail system… that’s one thing that nobody ought to need to do, there’s no citizen of Cullman County that must be confronted with tragedy due to failures within the system.” Gentry’s counsel said of their brief in opposition that “Petitioner Hester just isn’t searching for certiorari of the particular determination beneath, however is as a substitute belatedly trying to reshape his arguments into an unbiased substantive due course of declare that has by no means been a part of this case.”

Source / Picture: jurist.org

Donation for Author

Buy author a coffee

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

@2023 LawyersRankings.com. All Right Reserved.