I just have one question, then. How can they deny bail in federal cases? Doesn’t the Eighth Amendment imply that some sort of bail, then, should be provided?
I have heard of it happening. I have no cites, yet. But I assume it would just be common knowledge.
(Also, ironically the 8th Amendment only applies to the states (via the 14th Amendment) insofar as the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision. The rest of the amendment, so far, has never been applied to the states. Did you know, some judges don’t even realize this fact?)
I’m not a lawyer, but since they can send you to jail for shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater, all rights have practical limits. In this case, I would suspect the key is the word “excessive”.
If the suspect just got caught holding a smoking rifle and there’s 10 bodies lying nearby, one could reasonably argue that it would not be “excessive” for bail to be infinite (aka denied), as the defendant might kill more people if released.
I suppose to comply with the letter of the constitution, maybe the government should have to name a number when they want to deny bail, but they’d be able to make it arbitrarily high. A trillion bucks for every count of murder or something.
$1 billion bail for being charged with littering in a national park would be excessive. Denial of bail for being charged with blowing up a bridge or something is not excessive.
There’s a large body of case law on what constitutes “excessive” bail. I’m too busy to look up the seminal cases now but you can probably use your googler.
IANAL but as I recall, bail is a guarantee that you will show up for trial if let go. There are a list of conditions -likelihood of flight (and ability to flee), whether there’s a risk the perp will re-offend, bail should be set by the seriousness of the charges, mental stability, etc.
That’s why in real and Hollywood cases, you hear arguments about ties to the community vs. flight risk, resources for flight, etc. Plus, likelihood of re-offending, holding the suspect over for mental evaluation, etc.
Remember, there are no “magic words”. The supreme court is the final arbiter of the constitution and has set limits on everything, there is no absolute right to free speech, to bear arms, or to bail. If a person is denied bail, obviously the prosecutor has convinced the judge there is a significant risk the person may flee or re-offend.
I suppose we can wait for a real lawyer to tell us the burden of proof necessary in that case to deny bail - to me it seems pretty arbitrary.
It basically means that bail in an amount more than necessary to reasonably assure appearance at trial and safety to the community is “excessive.” Bail is not to be a punishment, but carefully calculated only for the above purposes. In some cases, no amount of money can reasonably ensure that, so no bail is set. In other cases (Zuckerberg and shoplifting) the chances of a well-known celebrity fleeing over such a minor misdemeanor is so small that no monetary bail should be required. (called variously R.O.R., O.R., P.R., etc.).
What a judge can’t do is say something like “Zuckerberg can afford it and I’m teaching him a lesson: $1 billion bail for his shoplifting.”
