A defendant held in any jail in California, Los Angeles Jail for example, has a right to bail below present law unless there’s sufficient proof or reason not to grant the bail. Any individual charged or accused of committing a crime is presumed innocent till confirmed guilty in a court of law. Simply because of this, any person charged having a crime shouldn’t be denied freedom unless of course there’s good cause to keeping them incarcerated. The main reason for refusing bail to the defendant is if they are accused of an imprisonable offence and you will find substantial grounds for believing the defendant would do one of the following. Most defendants utilize bail bondsman. They are persons that handle the bail bonds transaction and are backed by a surety (insurance company).
1. Abscond: Which is to escape once the defendant continues to be released. This is also known as skipping bail
2. Commit extra crimes while on bail
3. Interfere with witnesses
The court and judge also consider in to account the following when coping with bail.
1. The nature and seriousness from the crime and the probable technique of coping with the defendant for this crime
2. The character, family members, ancestors, social background, associations, and community ties from the defendant
3. The defendant’s bail record
4. The strength of proof against or for the defendant’s crime
The court or judge may refuse bail for the defendant for that following.
1. For that defendant’s personal safety. Possibly in the situation of domestic violence or if the defendant might be regarded as like a witness or for possible testifying.
2. Where the defendant is already serving a custodial sentence for an additional offence.
3. Exactly where the court finds that it has not been in a position to acquire sufficient proof.
4. Exactly where the defendant has absconded or skipped bail previously or for that present charge.
5. Exactly where the defendant has been convicted but the court is waiting for a pre-sentencing report or inquiry and it would be unable to finish the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in jail.
6. Where the defendant is charged with a non-imprisonable crime, has already been released on bail for the crime with which he’s now accused and continues to be arrested for skipping bail (absconding) or breaching the bail contract.
In 1789 Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act specified which kinds of crimes were bailable and set bounds around the judge’s discretion in setting that said bail. The Judiciary Act states that all non-capital crimes are considered bailable. In capital cases, the choice to detain a defendant in jail, prior to trial, was to be left up to the judge’s discretion.
Bail Reform Act of 1966
In 1966, the Right to Bail altered with the Bail Reform Act of 1966. The Act states that a defendant charged having a non-capital crime is to be released, pending trial, on his individual recognizance (OR) or on individual bond, unless of course the judicial officer determines that such incentives (bail) will not adequately assure his look at trial and all subsequent trial dates thereafter. The judge should choose from a list of circumstances, such as restrictions on travel and others listed above. Defendants charged having a capital crime or who have been convicted and therefore are awaiting sentencing or appeal, are to be released unless the judicial officer has cause to think that no conditions will reasonably assure that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to anyone. In non-capital instances, The Bail Reform Act doesn’t permit a judge to consider a suspect’s danger to the community, this only happens in capital instances or following a conviction.
New Bail Law in 1984
In 1984 Congress replaced the old Bail Reform Act of 1966. Probably the most significant alter towards the new law is the fact that it allows pre-trial detention of individuals based upon their danger towards the neighborhood; the old law statutes states that pre-trial detention was to become solely based on the danger of flight.