The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in favor of upholding a 2018 ruling by the state appeals court that requires judges to consider a criminal defendant’s financial situation and non-monetary alternatives when setting bail.
The case was brought on by Kenneth Humphrey, a San Francisco man accused of taking a $5 bottle of cologne from his neighbor’s home in 2017. His bail was initially set at $600,000 and he languished in jail for nearly a year as he awaited trial for burglary, robbery, elder abuse and theft charges.
In 2018, Humphrey, represented by late Public Defender Jeff Adachi, appealed his detention, with the appeals court ultimately agreeing he was entitled to a new bail hearing with the judge considering his ability to afford bail.
The appeals court decision also called for the California Constitution to require all state court judges to examine the ability to pay when setting bail unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk to public safety.
More insane California liberalism as most criminals do not have the money for their own bail. Texas is looking better all the time.
I love how they pick the most ridiculous example of the guy with a $600,000.00 bail. Soon we will get the stats on how many no bail perps show up.
Crazy, you can’t make this stuff up.
So he spent a year in jail for ELDER ABUSE, burglary and robbery. So why is taking a $5 bottle of cologne mentioned first? Isn’t elder abuse more serious? The $600k bail is fair for ELDER ABUSE.
Depends on what they are calling elder abuse. However that was supposed to be an example of how bad bail is. The real damage will be what these no bail perps do when they are loose.
@KT
Exactly!
Love the slated article!
“…….accused of taking a $5 bottle of cologne from a neighbors home..”
If that was all he was accused of, why was he “awaiting trial for burglary, robbery, elder abuse, and theft charges”? Seems like he did a little more than steal a $5 bottle of cologne! Gotta love our “unbiased” press!
You don’t get a $600k bail for stealing a $5 bottle of cologne!
It doesn’t matter what the people want.
The only thing that matters to Government is what they want.
And those incredible bleeding hearts who’s thought processes are astounding.
Yes, the story is leaving out some details. From SF Chronicle…
“The court case involved a San Francisco man, Kenneth Humphrey, now 66. He is accused of entering the apartment of a 79-year-old man who lived in the same building in May 2017, threatening to put a pillowcase over his head and stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne.
Humphrey, a retired shipyard worker who lived in the same building, had been addicted to drugs most of his life, was enrolled in a rehabilitation program and had felony convictions from 1992 and earlier. A Superior Court judge initially set his bail at $600,000 based on the charges and Humphrey’s record, and later lowered it to $350,000 based on his willingness to undergo treatment.”
The high bail was not for the $5 bottle of cologne, obviously. I’m surprised they didn’t rule on limiting bail whether one is a person of color or “uncolored”, that will be next. I so can’t wait to get the heck out of this lunatic state!!!
From a quick Google search – it looks like it costs taxpayers $81,000 a year to keep someone incarcerated…
Then of course the costs of the court, lawyers, etc..
Was this a good use of $81,000 of taxpayer money?
Maybe yes, maybe no – but the costs to taxpayers must be taken into account…
What price, cost do you put on elder abuse and the rest of the charges?
No deterrent, no consequences problem continues.
In the long run if you pay and prosecute others may think twice… if its over $950.
Sounds like you should open up your home as the halfway house.
Rob-
I’m sure you’d feel the same way if a former
felon and drug addict entered your home and
threatened to put a pillowcase over your head.
Now imagine that happening to your 79 year
old father. Nice to see you can put a price on
the fear that old man must have felt. Also nice
to know you don’t mind a person like that being
out on the street until his trial.
Why is anybody awaiting trial for a year? That’s the real problem here, as far as I can see.
The assets you put up for bail are to serve as a reminder to not reoffend while you’re not in custody awaiting trial. Take away bail and just let everyone go free, what’s the deterrent to reoffending? If you’re not going to lose money (or your family’s), there may not be a change in behavior while not in custody.
Based on other decisions CA has made about sentencing and enforcement, I suspect this is a bad idea.
But why are people waiting so long to be tried?? Don’t you have a right to a prompt trial? And isn’t that better for the state anyway?
@Led, The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. However, defendants will usually waive that right on the advice of their attorney in order to prepare their case, negotiate a plea deal, or seek a dismissal. The courts are backlogged, if the defendant cannot make bail, they may sit in jail for a long time.
A defendant in a felony case in CA has a right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court-days and a jury trial within 60 calendar-days following the preliminary hearing. However, it is very common for the defendant to waive these rights (especially if the evidence is strong and it is likely they will be convicted). Why be in a hurry to get convicted…
These time-lines have been adjusted, but not eliminated, during CV-19. However, Mr. Humphrey’s case was years prior to CV-19. The key point in the Humphrey case was whether a strict bail amount should apply to a particular charge, no matter the economic circumstance of the defendant. The courts have been following the Humphrey Lower-Appellate-Court ruling for years now. Who gets out on bail has not really changed that much; it just adds another step in the pretrial litigation process. However, CV-19 HAS dramatically changed who is being release prior to trial, but that is another debate.
it worked out well for Jeff Adachi. Dead due to an OD in the company of his mistress.