{"id":1882,"date":"2020-08-24T13:57:49","date_gmt":"2020-08-24T20:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882"},"modified":"2020-08-24T13:57:49","modified_gmt":"2020-08-24T20:57:49","slug":"chipping-away-at-cash-bail-in-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882","title":{"rendered":"Chipping away at cash bail in California"},"content":{"rendered":"

In re Humphrey<\/em> (S247278) has been fully briefed and pending before the California Supreme Court for almost two years.\u00a0 As a general rule, a published Court of Appeal opinion has “no binding or precedential effect” while review is pending (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(1)<\/a>).\u00a0 The California Supreme Court, however, may so order otherwise (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(3)).\u00a0 As reported<\/a> by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked the court to utilize its authority to reclassify the Court of Appeal’s opinion as “binding and precedential” while the case is pending review.\u00a0 Becerra claims that the issue of keeping people incarcerated due to “their inability to afford bail has become critically important because of ‘the unexpected change in circumstances caused by the unprecedented impacts of the novel coronavirus pandemic.'”<\/p>\n

Kenneth Humphrey, a repeat offender, was charged with robbery and burglary.\u00a0 Bail was initially set at $600,000, then later reduced to $350,000.\u00a0 Humphrey’s request for pretrial release on his own recognizance without financial conditions was denied by the trial court.\u00a0 The Court of Appeal decision granted Humphrey a new bail hearing in which inquiry must be made on his ability to pay money bail.\u00a0 If unable to pay money bail, non-monetary alternatives must be addressed. CJLF filed an amicus <\/em>brief in the case that can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Also while\u00a0Humphrey<\/em> has been pending, the California Legislature passed, and former Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 10, which abolished cash bail and instead requires a judge to make a pretrial risk assessment for all felony offenders. SB 10 divides them into three categories – low, medium, or high risk. Those charged with most misdemeanors are not assessed pretrial and are to be booked and released\u00a0(For a more thorough evaluation of SB10, look here<\/a>).\u00a0 \u00a0 SB10, however, was put on hold when the bail industry gathered the required number of signatures for a referendum so that the voters can make the ultimate decision on whether cash bail should remain viable in California.\u00a0 It will appear as Proposition 25 on the November 3, 2020 election ballot.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin implemented his own version of SB10 when he eliminated cash bail in San Francisco<\/a>.\u00a0 In late March, the California Judicial Council established a zero bail policy in an effort to reduce the jail population so as to protect inmates from COVID. Its no surprise that the policy resulted in more crime<\/a>.\u00a0 The policy was rescinded in June.\u00a0 Becerra’s request to make the Court of Appeal’s Humphrey <\/em>opinion binding precedent is just another effort to chip away at cash bail in California before the election.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In re Humphrey (S247278) has been fully briefed and pending before the California Supreme Court for almost two years.\u00a0 As a general rule, a published Court of Appeal opinion has “no binding or precedential effect” while review is pending (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(1)).\u00a0 The California Supreme Court, however, may so order otherwise (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(3)).\u00a0 As reported by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked the court to utilize its authority to reclassify the Court of Appeal’s opinion as “binding and precedential” while the case is pending review.\u00a0 Becerra claims that the issue of keeping people incarcerated due to “their inability to afford bail has become critically important because of ‘the unexpected change in circumstances caused by the unprecedented impacts of the novel coronavirus pandemic.’” Kenneth Humphrey, a repeat offender, was charged with robbery and burglary.\u00a0 Bail was initially set at $600,000, then later reduced to $350,000.\u00a0 Humphrey’s request for pretrial release on his own recognizance without financial conditions was denied by the trial court.\u00a0 The Court of Appeal decision granted Humphrey a new bail hearing in which inquiry must be made on his ability to pay money bail.\u00a0 If unable to pay money bail, non-monetary alternatives must be addressed. CJLF filed an amicus brief in the case that can be found here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67,41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bail","category-politics"],"yoast_head":"\nChipping away at cash bail in California - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chipping away at cash bail in California - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In re Humphrey (S247278) has been fully briefed and pending before the California Supreme Court for almost two years.\u00a0 As a general rule, a published Court of Appeal opinion has “no binding or precedential effect” while review is pending (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(1)).\u00a0 The California Supreme Court, however, may so order otherwise (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(3)).\u00a0 As reported by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked the court to utilize its authority to reclassify the Court of Appeal’s opinion as “binding and precedential” while the case is pending review.\u00a0 Becerra claims that the issue of keeping people incarcerated due to “their inability to afford bail has become critically important because of ‘the unexpected change in circumstances caused by the unprecedented impacts of the novel coronavirus pandemic.'” Kenneth Humphrey, a repeat offender, was charged with robbery and burglary.\u00a0 Bail was initially set at $600,000, then later reduced to $350,000.\u00a0 Humphrey’s request for pretrial release on his own recognizance without financial conditions was denied by the trial court.\u00a0 The Court of Appeal decision granted Humphrey a new bail hearing in which inquiry must be made on his ability to pay money bail.\u00a0 If unable to pay money bail, non-monetary alternatives must be addressed. CJLF filed an amicus brief in the case that can be found here.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-08-24T20:57:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kym Stapleton\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kym Stapleton\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882\",\"name\":\"Chipping away at cash bail in California - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-24T20:57:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/64a1bbd3548cab46e134fd152b480ed2\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chipping away at cash bail in California\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/64a1bbd3548cab46e134fd152b480ed2\",\"name\":\"Kym Stapleton\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=5\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chipping away at cash bail in California - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chipping away at cash bail in California - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"In re Humphrey (S247278) has been fully briefed and pending before the California Supreme Court for almost two years.\u00a0 As a general rule, a published Court of Appeal opinion has “no binding or precedential effect” while review is pending (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(1)).\u00a0 The California Supreme Court, however, may so order otherwise (Calif. Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(3)).\u00a0 As reported by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked the court to utilize its authority to reclassify the Court of Appeal’s opinion as “binding and precedential” while the case is pending review.\u00a0 Becerra claims that the issue of keeping people incarcerated due to “their inability to afford bail has become critically important because of ‘the unexpected change in circumstances caused by the unprecedented impacts of the novel coronavirus pandemic.'” Kenneth Humphrey, a repeat offender, was charged with robbery and burglary.\u00a0 Bail was initially set at $600,000, then later reduced to $350,000.\u00a0 Humphrey’s request for pretrial release on his own recognizance without financial conditions was denied by the trial court.\u00a0 The Court of Appeal decision granted Humphrey a new bail hearing in which inquiry must be made on his ability to pay money bail.\u00a0 If unable to pay money bail, non-monetary alternatives must be addressed. CJLF filed an amicus brief in the case that can be found here.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2020-08-24T20:57:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kym Stapleton","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kym Stapleton","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882","name":"Chipping away at cash bail in California - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-08-24T20:57:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/64a1bbd3548cab46e134fd152b480ed2"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1882#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chipping away at cash bail in California"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/64a1bbd3548cab46e134fd152b480ed2","name":"Kym Stapleton","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=5"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1882"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1882\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1883,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1882\/revisions\/1883"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}