AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities


     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Bail

     New Jersey changed its pretrial release system, abandoning one which had long relied on monetary bail, based on a finding that the system resulted in the release of defendants who could afford to pay for their release, even if they posed a substantial risk of flight or danger to others, and the detention of poorer defendants who presented minimal risk and were accused of less serious crimes. Following a constitutional amendment, a state law ushered in created a new framework that prioritizes the use of non-monetary conditions of release over monetary bail. Plaintiff arrestees challenged the law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Fourth Amendment, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the state “from taking any actions to enforce statutory provisions [of the Act] . . . that allow imposition of severe restrictions on the pre-trial liberty of presumptively innocent criminal defendants without offering the option of monetary bail.” A federal appeals court ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to deposit money or obtain a corporate surety bond to ensure a criminal defendant’s future appearance in court as an equal alternative to non-monetary conditions of pretrial release. Holland v. Rosen, #17-3104, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 18554 (4th Cir.).

     A class action alleged that a county’s system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violated Texas constitutional and statutory law as well as federal constitutional due process and equal protection. The federal trial court denied the county’s summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. A federal appeals court upheld most of the trial court’s rulings, including its decision that plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims that the county’s policies violated procedural due process and equal protection. However, the appeals court held that the trial court’s definition of arrestees’ liberty interest under due process was too broad, and the procedures it required to protect that interest were too onerous. Further, the trial court erroneously concluded that the county sheriff could be considered a county policymaker for purposes of federal civil rights liability, and that the issued injunction was overbroad. The appeals court vacated the injunction and ordered the trial court to modify its terms. ODonnell v. Harris County, Tex., #17-20333, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 14578 (5th Cir.). 

     A class action claimed that a county’s system for setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Texas constitutional and statutory law. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment to the county, and the conclusion that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of claims that the county's policies violated procedural due process and equal protection. However, the appeals court held that the trial court's definition of the plaintiffs’ liberty interest under due process was too broad, and the procedures it required in its preliminary injunction to protect that interest were too onerous. It also erred by concluding that the county sheriff could be sued under section 1983, and the injunction was overbroad. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the sheriff from the suit, vacated the injunction, and ordered the district court to modify its terms. O’Donnell v. Harris County, Texas, #17-20333, 882 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018).

     A federal appeals court ruled that Younger v. Harris, #2, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) holding that federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim, did not require the trial court to abstain from hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention in state court. It held that the state had acted in good faith throughout this litigation with respect to the substantive merits of the claims. The petitioner’s case fell within the “irreparable harm” exception to Younger when he had been incarcerated for over six months without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing, and he had properly exhausted his state remedies as to his bail hearing. The trial court was ordered to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, providing that the writ issue unless the California Superior Court conducted a new constitutionally compliant bail hearing within fourteen days. Arevalo v. Hennessy, #17-17545, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir.).

 

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu