AARON BRADDS AND SAMUEL HILL v. DIONNE RANDOLPH
Court of Special Appeals, Nazarian, Sept. 28, 2018,
Cash Bail – A cash bail cannot be set without considering the defendant’s ability to pay

Facts:
In 2017, the Court of Appeals adopted Rules “designed to promote the release of defendants on their own recognizance or, when necessary, unsecured bond. Additional conditions should be imposed on release only if the need to ensure appearance at court proceedings, to protect the community, victims, witnesses, or any other person and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process…”
These rules were put in place because “we have learned over time that when courts rely primarily or overwhelmingly on financial pretrial release conditions, many defendants remain incarcerated when they shouldn’t, merely because they can’t post cash or a bond (while wealthier defendants, who might be just as dangerous or pose equal flight risks, can secure their freedom with money). And beyond the obvious deprivations of liberty, overreliance on financial conditions places lower-income people at a disadvantage in defending their cases and distorts their calculus as they consider whether to plead guilty or go to trial.”
In 2018, Aaron Bradds was charged with first-degree burglary and related charges. His bail was initially set at $25,000 by the court commissioner. At his bail review, the judge increased the bail amount to $50,000, but did not consider Bradds’ ability to pay that amount. Bradds was unable to make bail and, after having been held for two months pending trial, filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention.
In 2018, Samuel Hill was also charged with first-degree burglary and related charges. Hill’s bail was set at $35,000 by the court commissioner. At his bail review, the judge increased the bail amount to $50,000, but did not consider Hill’s ability to pay that amount. Just like Bradds, Hill was unable to make bail and, after having been held for two months pending trial, filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention.
Both Hill and Bradds had their habeas petition denied and both appealed, arguing that the judge in their bail review should have considered their ability to pay in setting a cash bail.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that the bail-review judges erred in setting a cash bail that was beyond the defendants’ ability to pay. Cases sent back for a new bail review hearing.

Pre-Trial Release – A defendant who has been charged with a crime can be either:
– released on his recognizance (a promise to show up for court) and to follow any release conditions that have been imposed
– released on a cash bail to guarantee his appearance in court and to follow any release conditions that have been imposed
– held pending trial

Release Factors – A defendant must be released pending trial unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant:
– will not appear for trial when required
– will be a danger to an alleged victim or another person
– poses a danger to the community as a whole

From the Case: “The record before the bail review court could have supported a range of outcomes. Both men could readily have been detained pending trial” due to criminal history, previous failures to appear, and the charge of burglary, which “carries a risk of physical confrontation with the homeowner or others who may be present… The problem arises in Mr. Bradds’s case because the court leapt immediately from a discussion of possibly detaining him to a decision to increase his bail, without any consideration of whether he should be held or of less onerous conditions or of his ability to pay.”

Conditions of Release – A defendant who is not being held may be released on the following conditions:
Required
– All defendants released pending trial are released on the condition that he/she:
– not engage in any criminal conduct during the period of pretrial release
– will appear in court when required to do so
Victim Contact
– a general no-contact order with a victim/witness
– requiring him/her to maintain a certain physical distance from another specified person
– prohibiting communication with another specified person
– other reasonable conditions to ensure the safety of a victim or witness
Travel
– reasonable restrictions with respect to travel, association, and place of residence
– requirement that the defendant maintain employment or actively seek employment
– requirement that the defendant start/continue an educational program
– reasonable curfew
Supervision
– electronic monitoring
– periodic reporting to designated supervisory persons
– committing the defendant to the custody/supervision of a person/organization
Safety
– that the defendant refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon
Treatment
– that the defendant refrain from excessive use of alcohol or use/possession of CDS without a prescription
– that the defendant undergo available medical/psychological/psychiatric treatment for drug or alcohol dependency
Appearance
– unsecured bonds by the defendant and another person if he/she has a verifiable and lawful personal relationship with the defendant
– secured 10% bond
– secured bond
Other
– any other lawful condition that will help ensure the appearance of the defendant or the safety of each alleged victim, other persons, or the community

Release Conditions – Release conditions must be the “least onerous” (least of a burden on the defendant) that will still reasonably ensure: (A) the appearance of the defendant and (B) the safety of each alleged victim, other persons, and the community.

Cash Bail – Cash bail may be imposed “only to ensure the appearance of the defendant and may not be imposed solely to prevent future criminal conduct during the pretrial period or to protect the safety of any person or the community; nor may they be imposed to punish the defendant or to placate public opinion.”

Cash Bail – Cash bail may be imposed “only as a last resort, and only when it’s the least onerous condition that will secure the defendant’s appearance or protect the public. And if the judicial officer has made that predicate finding, he must then conduct an individualized inquiry into the defendant’s ability to pay and make such a finding on the record before setting the bond.”

From the Case: “In both of these cases, intentionally or not, the records suggest that the court fell back on the approach common under the old Rules, not the Rules as revised. Both courts had a record on which they could have determined whether these defendants should have been held as dangerous or as flight risks. Once the courts decided not to hold these defendants, they should have considered non-financial conditions before considering financial conditions. And once the courts considered and rejected non-financial conditions, the court should have assessed the defendants’ financial status and set financial conditions that they had an opportunity to meet.” But because the courts decided not to hold the defendants without bail, “then skipped over any consideration of non-financial conditions, its decisions to impose these financial conditions on these indigent defendants were inconsistent with the revised Rules.” Cases sent back for a new bail review hearing.