Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals.
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was constitutional, which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially a danger to society.
The movement to eradicate bail from America’s justice system will face a crucial test Nov. 3, when California voters will decide whether to end the centuries-old practice of trading money for ...
California uses a bail schedule system, and judges in state court are directed to refer to the bail schedule while also taking into account the defendant's criminal record and whether the defendant poses a danger to the community. [33] The California legislature attempted to eliminate cash bail entirely. [34]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In January 2018, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Humphrey, holding that California’s money bail system violated due process and equal protection. [4] The ruling required trial court judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay as well as non-monetary options for release when determining a bail amount ...
The hearing may result in the court setting a new bail amount, new conditions, and a new court appearance date. [22] If a criminal defendant is arrested on a bench warrant, the court may determine that the person is a flight risk (likely to flee the jurisdiction) and order that person held without bail. [22] [23]