Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN)
https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

High Court Rules Bail Law Unconstitutional
https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2056		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  AWOBB [ Sun 10 Sep 2006 17:55 ]
Post subject:  High Court Rules Bail Law Unconstitutional
Sunday, September 10,2006
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - A law passed by the Legislature in 2002, allowing judges to impose "cash-only" bail on some defendants, violates the state Constitution, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court said that defendants in cases where bail is allowed must be permitted to provide a "surety" - essentially a promise backed with money by a family member, friend or bail bondsman - that they will appear for their trial.

In a case arising from Rutland County, the high court said Vermont District Court Judge Patricia Zimmerman ruled improperly when she imposed $60,000 cash bail on Henry J. Hance Jr.

Hance had been arrested on a felony charge of driving while intoxicated, eighth offense, possession of cocaine and driving while his license was suspended. He fled to South Carolina before his arraignment date, the high court said.

After five months on the lam, Hance was arrested in South Carolina, returned to Vermont and arraigned on the charges May 11.

At the arraignment, Zimmerman said there was "ample evidence" that Hance might run again. She said he could make bail only by producing $60,000 in cash. The ruling came after Hance's mother said she could put up the more commonly imposed 10 percent cash, or $6,000, and offer her property as guarantee, the justices said.

Judges can deny bail to someone charged with a crime that carries a possible life sentence and where evidence of guilt is great; they also can do so when there is strong evidence that the defendant would commit violence if released.

But in other cases, the justices said, "our Constitution makes clear that a defendant, who is after all presumed innocent, has liberty interests that must be balanced against the court's interest in securing his or her appearance."

The justices noted that the judge was careful to say that she was setting cash bail for Hance only to ensure that he would not skip bail again.

The court's decision quoted Zimmerman as saying, "bail is not being imposed to ensure your incarceration, Mr. Hance. It is being imposed to assure your appearance."

But the justices, in a decision written by Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund, found that Zimmerman - and the Legislature - erred when they neglected language from the Vermont Constitution, which says that "all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties."

"The distinction between a secured appearance and cash-only bail is significant from the standpoint of a defendant's liberty interests," the court said. It added that "when a court requires only a secured appearance bond, a defendant can avoid pre-trial confinement without posting cash or by posting a small percentage of the bail amount."
Author:  HoundDog [ Mon 11 Sep 2006 12:39 ]
Post subject: 
I need to copy this article for some attorneys around here. We have quite a few Judges that impose very high Cash Only bonds which should be considered unconstitutional if a surety is willing to put up the risk.

This is a very good article for all Bail Bondsman if they have a problem in their area with high cash only bonds... put this is some of the attorneys hands and it might change.
Author:  KARMA [ Thu 14 Sep 2006 16:28 ]
Post subject:  update
Bail changes expected following Supreme Court ruling

By Adam Silverman
Free Press Staff Writer

September 14, 2006
Vermont criminal defendants might face higher bail amounts, and bondsmen could see their business increase following a state Supreme Court decision guaranteeing suspects the right to get out of jail by posting a percentage of bail rather than the full amount in cash.

The ruling, though, is unlikely to alter fundamentally the standard practices of prosecutors, who request bail, or the day-to-day conduct of the bond business, experts said.

"The bottom-line effect is, it's probably going to make bail more accessible," said Bill Burnett, owner of South Burlington business Advantage Bail Bonds Vermont.

Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Skoglund, writing the unanimous opinion filed last week in a case arising from Rutland County, said a District Court judge was wrong to require a man accused of driving under the influence -- for the eighth time -- and possessing cocaine to post $60,000 in cash as the only way to win his release pending trial.

The high court invalidated a section of state law that allowed judges to impose so-called "cash only" bail. That more-stringent requirement often is levied on defendants considered a high risk to flee or who are facing serious felony charges, Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell said.

"The court wants a defendant to have a significant financial interest in appearing," he said.

A suspect would have to post the full bail amount in cash or 10 percent plus collateral, such as property, to be freed from jail. The now-overturned state law, which the Legislature passed in 2002, permitted a judge to eliminate the down-payment option, called a surety.

When defendants who have posted bail return to court, their money is returned. If they post a bail through a bondsman, however, the business keeps the 10 percent as a fee, Burnett said. Family members or friends also can put up money and collateral to win a suspect's release.

The Vermont Constitution guarantees a defendant's right to post the lesser amount, Skoglund wrote.

"The imposition of cash-only bail is, in effect, a denial of bail under circumstances that are not constitutionally permissible," Skoglund wrote. "Our constitution makes clear that a defendant, who is after all presumed innocent, has liberty interests that must be balanced against the court's interest in securing his or her appearance."

Skoglund added, however, that courts have discretion to reject surety arrangements that seem insufficient to guarantee a defendant's appearances. Judges also can release suspects on conditions, without imposing bail.

Burnett said the change in bail law will lead to a marginal increase in business. Treadwell said the change could affect how judges and prosecutors operate.

"One might imagine," Treadwell said, "that the way around that might be to impose higher amounts of bail."

A bail amount of $60,000 cash could be achieved by raising that person's bail to $600,000 and requiring 10 percent down, for instance.

Deputy Chittenden County State's Attorney Justin Jiron said that approach seems unlikely.

"We're not supposed to keep picking higher amounts until they can't make it," he said, and added that the State's Attorney's Office most likely will keep operating as usual. "When we ask for bail, we don't really care who's putting it up, whether it's cash or their house as collateral."

As for the suspect at the center of the Supreme Court case, Henry J. Hance Jr., he remained jailed Wednesday night at the Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield. He has a bail review hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

Contact Adam Silverman at 660-1854 or asilverm@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/