NCJ Number
53183
Journal
Tennessee Law Review Volume: 46 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1978) Pages: 203-221
Date Published
1978
Length
35 pages
Annotation
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES INVOLVING THE IMPOSITION OF MONEY BAIL REQUIREMENTS ON INDIGENT SUSPECTS IS DISCUSSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASE LAW.
Abstract
TO DETERMINE THE MINIMAL PROCEDURES THAT WILL SATISFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT OF INDIGENTS TO THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY BAIL IN A WEALTH-BASED LEGAL SYSTEM, RESULTS OF CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM ARE ANALYZED. ALTHOUGH A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT THE PRETRIAL DETENTION OF AN INDIGENT SOLELY BECAUSE HE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY MONEY BAIL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT EQUAL PROTECTION REQUIRES THAT THE JUDGE CONSIDER LESS FINANCIALLY BASED FORMS OF RELEASE PRIOR TO IMPOSING MONEY BAIL, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SITTING EN BANC VACATED THE EARLIER RULING. IN PUGH V. RAINWATER (1978) THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RULED AFTER REHEARING THAT AN EXPRESS PRESUMPTION AGAINST MONEY BAIL AND IN FAVOR OF OTHER FORMS OF RELEASE IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO A VALID BAIL STATUTE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRETED TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO BAIL, MUCH LESS THE RIGHT TO PRETRIAL RELEASE, BUT THAT SINCE THE CASE OF GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS (1956) THE CONCEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION HAS BEEN USED TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF WEALTH. A CONSTITUTIONAL TENSION IS PERCEIVED BETWEEN THE EXCESSIVENESS FORMULA ESTABLISHED IN THE STACK V. BOYLE DECISION OF 1951, WHICH STATES THAT THE ABILITY TO PAY IS ONLY ONE FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED, AND THE SITUATION WHERE FIXING OF BAIL IN EVEN A MODEST AMOUNT MAY HAVE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF DENYING RELEASE TO AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT. THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST AND THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST ARE CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO VARIOUS STATE SYSTEMS OF BAIL RELEASE. FURTHER DISCUSSION INCLUDES THE TOPIC OF THE EXPLICITNESS WITH WHICH A STATE'S BAIL STATUTE MUST PROTECT THE INDIGENT'S RIGHTS. (TWK)