In a series of posts I’ve been discussing bail reform, including highlighting pilot programs underway in North Carolina. In 2018, I worked with stakeholders in North Carolina’s Judicial District 30B (Haywood and Jackson counties) to help them identify and implement a basket of pretrial reforms. One of the implemented reforms involves providing first appearances for in-custody defendants charged with misdemeanors and Class H and I felonies (highest charge) or arrested on a probation violation within 72 hours of arrest or at the first regular session of the district court in the county, whichever occurs first. The new procedure went into effect on January 1, 2019.
pretrial release
Bail Reform in North Carolina—Pilot Project: New Decisionmaking Framework
In a series of posts I’ve been discussing bail reform, including highlighting pilot programs underway in North Carolina. In 2018, I worked with stakeholders in North Carolina’s Judicial District 30B (Haywood and Jackson counties) to help them identify and implement a basket of pretrial reforms. One of the implemented reforms is a new decisionmaking framework for determining conditions of pretrial release. Key features of the framework include:
- An easily implemented, stakeholder-created tool to quickly identify low-risk defendants who immediately can be released on non-financial conditions.
- A requirement that decisionmakers follow the statutory mandate and impose non-financial conditions unless they determine that such release will not reasonably assure appearance; will pose a danger of injury to any person; or is likely to result in the destruction of evidence, subornation of perjury, or intimidation of witnesses.
- Recommended maximum bond amounts for secured bonds and the requirement that ability to pay be considered in connection with imposition of that form of release.
Bail Reform in North Carolina—Pilot Project: Early Involvement of Counsel
In prior blog posts I outlined some of the reasons why stakeholders are interested in bail reform and some of the options that are being considered. In this one, I discuss one bail reform pilot project already underway in North Carolina.
Bail Reform in North Carolina — What Are the Options?
In my last post, I discussed some of the reasons why stakeholders are interested in bail reform. In this one I explore some of the changes that are being implemented and evaluated.
Bail Reform in North Carolina—Why the Interest?
Bail reform is a hot topic in North Carolina. It was recommended by Chief Justice Mark Martin’s North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice (report here) and jurisdictions across the state are embarking on reform. In this post I discuss some of the reasons why stakeholders are interested in the issue. In a companion post, I discuss reforms that they are implementing and evaluating.
Eleventh Circuit Weighs in on the Constitutional Parameters for Bail Systems
Interest in bail reform is heating up in North Carolina. The Chief Justice’s North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice recommended implementing evidence-based pretrial justice reform, and reform already is happening in several counties. The North Carolina Courts Commission took up the issue at its September 2018 meeting and Attorney General Josh Stein recently announced a stakeholder Roundtable on the topic. Among the reasons for the interest is this: Litigation risk. Advocates of bail reform have racked up wins in other jurisdictions. In March, I wrote (here) about a recent Fifth Circuit decision holding that the bail system in Harris County Texas violated due process and equal protection. (That opinion was superseded after rehearing but the court’s holding remains essentially the same). In August, the Eleventh Circuit decided Walker v. City of Calhoun, GA, ___ F.3d ___, 2018 WL 4000252 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2018). Here’s what happened there:
Fifth Circuit: Bail System Violates Due Process & Equal Protection
Organizations around the country have called for bail reform. Here at home, a report by the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice recommended that North Carolina move forward with pretrial justice reform. A recent Fifth Circuit case holding that the bail system in Harris County, Texas violates due process and equal protection may create an impetus for jurisdictions to act: Litigation risk.
May a Magistrate Impose Conditions on a Defendant’s Conduct While in Pretrial Detention?
This question in the title of this post came up in a recent class. The specific context involved a domestic violence defendant who was in jail waiting for a judge to set conditions of release pursuant to the 48 hour rule established in G.S. 15A-534.1. But a similar issue arises whenever a magistrate sets conditions of release for a defendant who is unable to make bond and so remains in pretrial detention. An example of a common condition is that the defendant not contact the alleged victim.
Anticipatory Bonds for Probation Violations
“Arrest on first positive drug screen. $50,000 secured bond.”
“Hold without bond for any probation violation.”
May a judge sentencing a defendant to probation include instructions such as these in the judgment suspending sentence?
Federal Judge Prohibits Money Bail for Indigent Defendants Charged Only with Misdemeanors
The decision, handed down April 28, 2017, comes out of Harris County, home to Houston, Texas. If you decide to read the opinion, ODonnell v. Harris County, be prepared to spend some time with it. The opinion is 193 pages long, and one reading may not be enough. Readers will see similarities and differences between the bail practices in Harris County and North Carolina. This post doesn’t undertake to compare the two and instead does a not-so-brief review of the findings, conclusions, and relief ordered by the judge, Chief District Court Judge Lee H. Rosenthal (if you’re wondering, appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992). The bottom line is that the decision enjoins Harris County from “detaining indigent misdemeanor defendants who are otherwise eligible for release but are unable because of their poverty to pay a secured money bail.” Slip op. at 181.