How about a brief refresher on federal bail, since everyone's got opinions on it this week? Yes?

Okay, here we go. In federal criminal cases, bail is governed by the Bail Reform

/2 Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant MUST BE RELEASED ON BAIL unless the judicial officer (usually a federal magistrate judge) finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure (1) them appearing for trial or (2) the safety of the community.
/3 It's the burden of the government -- the federal prosecutor - to PROVE by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the danger element applies, and no conditions can reasonably control it, if the government wants someone detained without bail. Preponderance burden for flight risk.
/4 HOWEVER there are certain statutory categories of crimes where there is a rebuttable presumption that no conditions will prevent flight or danger -- in other words, for those crimes, the burden shifts to the defendant.
/5 The Federal Rules of Evidence don't govern detention hearings and they can and do proceed by "proffer" -- that is, the government saying what they will prove if necessary.
/6 Here is a government-side description of the law and the process -- shaded towards the government but pretty reliable.

https://t.co/4qYabZo7St.
/7 Since bail is an entitlement unless NO COMBINATION OF CONDITIONS will prevent flight risk or danger, judges must and do consider measures like pretrial supervision, home detention, bail posted by the defendant or loved ones, restrictions on activities, etc.
/8 Before the bail hearing the Pretrial Services Office -- an arm of the court -- does a brief investigation, background check, and interviews (including of the defendant and family). Their recommendation tends to weigh heavily with the judge.
/9 The bottom line is that "why would someone accused of that federal crime be released" is, legally and practically, the wrong question.

/end

More from Law

High crime talk from Fredo


VA curfew


Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China

Warning


March
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw


Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.

So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:

1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."


2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”

3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."

You May Also Like