List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

52 —Excessive bail (66) Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

49 BAIL 3,008 49II In Criminal Prosecutions 2,951 49 50 Amount of Bail 196 49 52 Excessive bail 66

1. Mendia v. Garcia United States District Court, N.D. California. February 26, 2016 165 F.Supp.3d 861 Headnote: Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause prevents the imposition of bail conditions that are excessive in light of the valid interests the state seeks to protect by offering bail. U.S. Const. Amend. 8.

Document Summary: GOVERNMENT - Tort Claims. Detainee would be granted leave to amend complaint to assert a false imprisonment claim under the FTCA .

2. Mendia v. Garcia United States District Court, N.D. California. February 26, 2016 165 F.Supp.3d 861 Headnote: In order to prevail on an excessive bail claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the bail conditions are excessive for the purpose of achieving the valid state interests for which bail is intended to serve for a particular individual; a plaintiff must also demonstrate that the law enforcement official was the actual and proximate cause of the excessive bail by deliberately or recklessly making misrepresentations to the court. U.S. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: GOVERNMENT - Tort Claims. Detainee would be granted leave to amend complaint to assert a false imprisonment claim under the FTCA .

3. Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 18, 2013 719 F.3d 1054 Headnote: To determine whether particular legislative denial of bail violates Excessive Bail Clause, court must look to valid state interests bail is intended to serve for particular individual and judge whether bail conditions are excessive for purpose of achieving those interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Arizona constitutional provision prohibiting state courts from setting bail for detainees did not violate due process.

4. Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 18, 2013 719 F.3d 1054 Headnote: Arizona constitutional provision that categorically prohibited state courts from setting bail for arrestees who were in United States illegally was not excessive in light of Arizona's legitimate interest of assuring presence at trial, and thus did not violate Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause. A.R.S. Const. Art. 2, §22(A)(4).

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Arizona constitutional provision prohibiting state courts from setting bail for detainees did not violate due process.

5. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: Journalist arrested while covering a demonstration at a university stated a §1983 claim against the university's board of regents, its police department and various officers for violation of the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment on a theory that defendants added unsupported charges for the sole purpose of increasing his bail; the theory was viable

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

under the Excessive Bail Clause, despite the indirect means defendants allegedly used to obtain the higher bail, and the intervening actions of the judicial officer who actually set bail. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; 42 U.S.C.A. §1983; West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code §1275. 3 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation.

6. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: Excessive Bail Clause prevents the imposition of bail conditions that are excessive in light of the valid interests the state seeks to protect by offering bail. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation.

7. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: When faced with claims of excessive bail, courts look to the valid state interests bail is intended to serve for a particular individual and judge whether bail conditions are excessive for the purpose of achieving those interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation.

8. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: State may not set bail to achieve invalid interests, nor in an amount that is excessive in relation to the valid interests it seeks to achieve. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation.

9. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: Plaintiff can state a claim under the Excessive Bail Clause where defendants deliberately or recklessly mislead a judicial officer to raise an arrestee's bail for the purpose of buying time to obtain an unlawful search warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 2 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation.

10. U.S. v. Pool United States District Court, E.D. California. May 27, 2009 645 F.Supp.2d 903 Headnote: Bail Reform Act's provision for mandatory DNA sampling as condition of pretrial release did not violate Excessive Bail Clause; DNA sampling involved minimal intrusion, vs. federal government's compelling interest in collection of DNA for criminal law enforcement identification purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(b), (c)(1)(A). 1 Case that cites this legal issue

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Searches and Seizures. Requirement that federal indictee provide DNA sample as condition of pretrial release comported with Fourth Amendment.

11. U.S. v. Pool United States District Court, E.D. California. May 27, 2009 645 F.Supp.2d 903 Headnote: To find violation of Excessive Bail Clause, court must find that release conditions are excessive in light of the perceived evil. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Searches and Seizures. Requirement that federal indictee provide DNA sample as condition of pretrial release comported with Fourth Amendment.

12. U.S. v. Petersen United States District Court, E.D. California. May 16, 2008 557 F.Supp.2d 1124 Headnote: Fifth and Eighth Amendments prohibitions of deprivations of liberty without due process and of excessive bail require careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate of the Bail Reform Act has been respected. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(e-g).

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Pretrial detention was warranted of defendant charged with impersonating DEA agent.

13. U.S. v. Gardner United States District Court, N.D. California. November 28, 2007 523 F.Supp.2d 1025 Headnote: To find violation of Excessive Bail Clause, court must find that release conditions are excessive in light of perceived evil. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Imposition of electronic monitoring as condition for pretrial release did not violate Excessive Bail Clause.

14. U.S. v. Gardner United States District Court, N.D. California. November 28, 2007 523 F.Supp.2d 1025 Headnote: Imposition of electronic monitoring as condition for pretrial release in prosecution for sex trafficking of minor did not violate Excessive Bail Clause, even though condition was statutorily mandated, and was not least restrictive condition necessary, where defendant was already under curfew at direction of Pretrial Services, electronic monitoring provided added insurance against violations of bond conditions, and defendant was not subject to substantive restriction in her movement or to bail amount that was financially out of her reach. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(c)(1)(B). 10 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Imposition of electronic monitoring as condition for pretrial release did not violate Excessive Bail Clause.

15. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: Bail of $1 million for domestic violence arrestee, enhanced from $50,000 listed in county's felony bail schedule, was not excessive, and thus did not violate Eighth Amendment, absent showing that the bail was enhanced for an improper purpose or that it was higher than necessary to achieve a valid state interest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code §§1269c, 1275. 3 Cases that cite this legal issue

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

16. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: The Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not bar the state from detaining even noncapital arrestees without bail, or from considering interests other than flight prevention in setting bail. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 8 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

17. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: The Excessive Bail Clause prevents the imposition of bail conditions that are excessive in light of the valid interests the state seeks to protect by offering bail. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 27 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

18. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: To determine whether the Excessive Bail Clause has been violated, a court looks to the valid state interests bail is intended to serve for a particular individual and judge whether bail conditions are excessive for the purpose of achieving those interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 16 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

19. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: Under California law, for noncapital defendants, the court may neither deny bail nor set it in a sum that is the functional equivalent of no bail. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code §§1270.5, 1271.

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

20. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: “Excessive bail” under Eighth Amendment is not merely bail that is beyond one's means, rather, it is bail greater than necessary to achieve purposes for which bail is imposed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 15 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

21. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: Excessiveness of bail cannot be determined by a general mathematical formula, but rather turns on the correlation between the state interests a judicial officer seeks to protect and the nature and magnitude of the bail conditions imposed in a particular case. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 3 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

22. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: Without examining the relevant state interests involved in setting the bail, courts cannot determine whether bail conditions are constitutionally excessive. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 5 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.

23. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States District Court, C.D. California. January 9, 2004 322 F.Supp.2d 1045 Headnote: Bail of $1 million for domestic violence arrestee, enhanced from $50,000 listed in county's felony bail schedule, was not excessive and thus did not violate Eighth Amendment; alleged victim had both older and more recent injuries including seven-inch laceration and allegedly feared for her safety, arrestee was local attorney who obtained bail within hours by paying $50,000 to post bond, and option of denying bail was unavailable under state law. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code §§273.5, 1269c, 1270.1, 1275(a). 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Bail of $1 million for domestic violence arrestee was not excessive under Eighth Amendment.

24. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States District Court, C.D. California. January 9, 2004 322 F.Supp.2d 1045 Headnote: Under California law, for purpose of determining whether bail that is set pre-complaint is excessive, allegations of arrest report are presumed to be true. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Bail of $1 million for domestic violence arrestee was not excessive under Eighth Amendment.

25. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States District Court, C.D. California. January 9, 2004 322 F.Supp.2d 1045 Headnote: Under California law, bail is not excessive simply because defendant cannot post it. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Bail of $1 million for domestic violence arrestee was not excessive under Eighth Amendment.

26. In re Hambarian Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. October 17, 2002 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Headnote: Bail in the amount of $2.5 million, set for defendant charged with grand theft, money laundering, and tax evasion, was excessive; defendant had no criminal record, institutional ties to county tended to minimize risk of flight, county's uniform bail schedule set bail amount at $10,000 for grand theft, and charges did not entail any risk of violence to public or even, given exposure case received, of any repetition. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 1, §12.

Document Summary: Defendant, who was charged with 65 counts, including grand theft, money laundering, and tax evasion, filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge order of the Superior Court, Orange County, No. DA98CF3696,Frank F. Fasel, J., setting his bail at $2.5 million. The Court of Appeal, Sills, P.J., held that, in light of zero criminal record, institutional ties to county tending to minimize flight risk, and much lower figure required by county's uniform bail schedule, amount of bail was excessive. Petition granted.

27. U.S. v. Nguyen United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 8, 2002 279 F.3d 1112 Headnote: Bond of $100,000 was not excessive, supporting bond forfeiture for defendant's failure to self-surrender to serve prison term pursuant to district court's order; defendant was convicted of eleven counts of loan fraud for which he was sentenced to serve over two years in prison and pay $300,000 restitution, and defendant was deemed a flight risk. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 46(e), 18 U.S.C.A.

Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Forfeitures. Surety did not help to apprehend defendant, supporting bond forfeiture.

28. U.S. v. Salerno Supreme Court of the United States May 26, 1987 481 U.S. 739 Headnote: To determine whether Government's proposed conditions of release or detention are excessive, for Eighth Amendment purposes, the Supreme Court must compare Government's proposed conditions against interest Government seeks to protect. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 75 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Defendants were committed for pretrial detention pursuant to the Bail Reform Act by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 631 F.Supp. 1364, John Walker, Jr., and Mary Johnson Lowe, JJ., and defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals, 794 F.2d 64, vacated and remanded. On writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that: (1) Bail Reform Act authorization of pretrial detention on basis of future dangerousness constituted permissible regulation that did not violate substantive due process, and was not impermissible punishment before trial; (2) due process clause did not categorically prohibit pretrial detention imposed as regulatory measure on ground of community danger, without regard to duration of detention; and (3) Bail Reform Act authorization of pretrial detention on ground of future dangerousness was not facially unconstitutional as violative of Eighth Amendment. Judgment of the Court...

29. U.S. v. Motamedi United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 8, 1985 767 F.2d 1403 Headnote: Fifth and Eighth Amendments' prohibitions of deprivation of liberty without due process and of excessive bail require careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that mandate of Bail Reform Act of 1984 for release under the least restrictive conditions that will reasonably assure appearance has been respected. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(c)(2); 18 U.S.C. (1982 Ed.) §§3146-3152. 99 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: The United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Wallace Tashima, J., granted Government's motion for postarraignment detention of defendant, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Kennedy, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) applicable standard of review for pretrial detention orders under Bail Reform Act of 1984 is one of deference to the district court's fact findings coupled with right of independent examination of the facts; (2) Government's burden of proof in establishing risk of flight

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

is by clear preponderance of the evidence; and (3) although defendant was charged with unlawful exportation of arms and was an Iranian citizen the Government failed to meet its burden of showing risk of flight. Reversed. Boochever, Circuit Judge, filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

30. U.S. v. Freitas United States District Court, N.D. California. February 21, 1985 602 F.Supp. 1283 Headnote: The excessive bail clause of the Eighth Amendment does not preclude Congress from enacting law that provides for pretrial detention without bail in certain types of cases. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: Defendant charged with manufacturing methamphetamine and with conspiracy to commit that offense moved to revoke or amend pretrial detention order issued by United States magistrate pursuant to Bail Reform Act. The District Court, Lynch, J., held that: (1) pretrial detention provision of the Bail Act does not violate Eighth Amendment; (2) Bail Act's pretrial detention provision did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment due process rights; and (3) although defendant rebutted Bail Act's presumption in favor of pretrial detention which was triggered by finding of probable cause that defendant committed serious drug offense, defendant would be detained pending trial. Motion denied.

31. U.S. v. Freitas United States District Court, N.D. California. February 21, 1985 602 F.Supp. 1283 Headnote: Provision of Bail Act which creates rebuttable presumption in favor of pretrial detention where court finds probable cause to believe defendant committed serious drug offenses and which shifts burden of production to such defendant does not violate Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive bail. 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(e); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 301, 28 U.S.C.A.

Document Summary: Defendant charged with manufacturing methamphetamine and with conspiracy to commit that offense moved to revoke or amend pretrial detention order issued by United States magistrate pursuant to Bail Reform Act. The District Court, Lynch, J., held that: (1) pretrial detention provision of the Bail Act does not violate Eighth Amendment; (2) Bail Act's pretrial detention provision did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment due process rights; and (3) although defendant rebutted Bail Act's presumption in favor of pretrial detention which was triggered by finding of probable cause that defendant committed serious drug offense, defendant would be detained pending trial. Motion denied.

32. In re Nordin Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. June 2, 1983 143 Cal.App.3d 538 Headnote: Denial of bail to defendant charged with two counts of soliciting murder did not violate guarantees against excessive bail afforded defendant by the Eighth Amendment. West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 1, §12(c); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.

Document Summary: Habeas corpus relief was sought by petitioner charged with two counts of soliciting murder who was denied bail by the Superior Court, Santa Clara County, Marilyn Pestarino Zecher, J. The Court of Appeal, Newsom, J., held that: (1) superior court had before it an ample record to support denial of bail; (2) denial of bail did not violate guarantees against excessive bail; and (3) pretrial detention without bail did not deprive petitioner's substantive due process. Petition denied. Racanelli, P.J., concurred specially and filed opinion.

33. Mecom v. U. S. Supreme Court of the United States September 20, 1977 434 U.S. 1340 Headnote: Where accused was involved in large-scale smuggling enterprise, which imported marijuana into Texas from Mexico in loads of 200 to 700 pounds, marijuana was then distributed to locations as far away as Indiana, accused's wife, a coindictee, acted as his “connection” in Mexico and was fugitive there, another associate in enterprise was also fugitive,

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

accused and his associates were frequently in possession of large amounts of cash and there was evidence that accused paid $100,000 for the murder, unsuccessfully attempted, of an associate suspected of cooperating with authorities, bail of $750,000, pending appeal of conviction of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, was not excessive. (Per Mr. Justice Powell, as Circuit Justice.) 18 U.S.C.A. § 3146(d); Fed.Rules App.Proc. rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A.; Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, § 406, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846. 12 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Application was made to Mr. Justice Powell, as Circuit Justice, for reduction of bail pending appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of a conviction of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Mr. Justice Powell held that where the applicant was involved in a large-scale smuggling enterprise, which imported marijuana into Texas from Mexico in loads of 200 to 700 pounds, the marijuana was then distributed to locations as far away as Indiana, applicant's wife, a coindictee, acted as his “connection” in Mexico and was a fugitive there, another associate in the enterprise was also a fugitive, applicant and his associates were frequently in possession of large amounts of cash, and there was evidence that applicant paid $100,000 for the murder, unsuccessfully attempted, of an associate suspected of cooperating with the authorities, bail of $750,000 pending appeal was not excessive. Application denied.

34. McDermott v. Superior Court Supreme Court of California, In Bank. February 25, 1972 6 Cal.3d 693 Headnote: Statute providing that 25% penalty assessment be added to the amount of bail and that the defendant be required to deposit total sum before he can obtain his release from custody violated federal and state constitutional provisions against excessive bail; disapproving People v. Norman, 252 Cal.App.2d 381, 60 Cal.Rptr. 609, and Sawyer v. Barbour, 142 Cal.App.2d 827, 300 P.2d 187. West's Ann.Pen.Code, § 13521; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, § 6; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 7 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceeding by petitioner against whom charges were pending in Superior Court, San Francisco County, challenging constitutionality of statute requiring court to add a 25% Penalty assessment to bail set in criminal cases. The Supreme Court, McComb, J., held that statute providing that 25% Penalty assessment be added to the amount of bail and that the defendant be required to deposit total sum before he can obtain his release from custody violated federal and state constitutional provisions against excessive bail. Writ of mandate issued. Opinion, 97 Cal.Rptr. 171, vacated.

35. McDermott v. Superior Court Supreme Court of California, In Bank. February 25, 1972 6 Cal.3d 693 Headnote: The posting of funds, although described as “bail” and penalties in excess thereof, for purposes other than insuring an accused's appearance in court, does not infringe constitutional prohibitions against excessive bail. West's Ann.Vehicle Code, § 42050; West's Ann.Pen.Code, § 13521; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, § 6; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceeding by petitioner against whom charges were pending in Superior Court, San Francisco County, challenging constitutionality of statute requiring court to add a 25% Penalty assessment to bail set in criminal cases. The Supreme Court, McComb, J., held that statute providing that 25% Penalty assessment be added to the amount of bail and that the defendant be required to deposit total sum before he can obtain his release from custody violated federal and state constitutional provisions against excessive bail. Writ of mandate issued. Opinion, 97 Cal.Rptr. 171, vacated.

36. People v. Amata Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California. March 11, 1969 270 Cal.App.2d 575 Headnote: In view of nature and scope of operations of defendants, who were involved in interstate operation involving stolen travelers checks, it could not be said that $62,500 bail set for each defendant was excessive and hence unconstitutional. West's Ann.Const. art. 1, § 6; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8; West's Ann.Pen.Code, § 1275.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Document Summary: Defendants were convicted in the Superior Court, Santa Clara County, Bruce P. Allen, J., of, inter alia, possession of unfinished counterfeit checks with intent to complete and utter them, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeal, David, J. pro tem., held, inter alia, that when negotiations between private investigator and defendants established that defendants could produce counterfeit travelers checks, offer of bank to purchase $2,000,000 of such counterfeit checks was not an inducement constituting ‘entrapment’ as a matter of law. Affirmed.

37. Walls v. Nelson United States District Court C.D. California. January 20, 1969 294 F.Supp. 931 Headnote: The California statute limiting bail after conviction to discretion of court is not contrary to the Eighth Amendment of the Federal Constitution providing that excessive bail shall not be required since someone must determine what is, or is not, “excessive”, which means that someone must exercise discretion. West's Ann.Cal.Pen.Code, § 1272, subd. 3; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8.

Document Summary: Habeas corpus proceeding. The District Court, Central District of California, Hall, J., held that the California statute limiting bail after conviction to discretion of court is not contrary to the Eighth Amendment of the Federal Constitution providing that excessive bail shall not be required since someone must determine what is, or is not, ‘excessive’, which means that someone must exercise discretion. Petition denied and case dismissed.

38. Sellers v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States August 17, 1968 89 S.Ct. 36 Headnote: Command of Eighth Amendment that excessive bail should not be required at the very least obligates judges passing upon right to bail to deny such relief only for the strongest of reasons. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3146, 3148. 14 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Application for bail pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Mr. Justice Black held that record disclosing that prior to conviction for refusing to submit to induction into armed services applicant, while free on bail, made trip to Japan to attend peace conference but returned to stand trial, that defendant was involved in incident resulting in his arrest for inciting and participating in arson, destruction of property, assault and battery, and conspiracy, and that in presentence statement applicant asserted that he could only be sentenced by ‘black people’ did not show sufficient danger to community or sufficient likelihood of flight to justify complete denial of bail pending appeal. Application granted.

39. White v. Wilson United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. July 19, 1968 399 F.2d 596 Headnote: Federal court hearing habeas corpus petition of state prisoner convicted of assault with a deadly weapon could not say that the alleged bail of $8,150 was excessive in view of prisoner's prior conviction. 9 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceeding on petition of state prisoner for writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Alfonso J. Zirpoli, J., entered order denying petition and issued a certificate of probable cause authorizing appeal to be taken in forma pauperis. The Court of Appeals, Jertberg, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia, that petitioner's claims of denial of due process because: state prisoner had been brought to trial on one charge and had been convicted of a lesser included offense; trial court gave

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

allegedly erroneous instructions; and submitted improper verdict forms to jury; and defendant was prejudiced by remarks of prosecutor did not present any federal questions. Affirmed.

40. White v. Wilson United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. July 19, 1968 399 F.2d 596 Headnote: Mere fact defendant is unable to pay bail does not make it excessive. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 8, 14. 12 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceeding on petition of state prisoner for writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Alfonso J. Zirpoli, J., entered order denying petition and issued a certificate of probable cause authorizing appeal to be taken in forma pauperis. The Court of Appeals, Jertberg, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia, that petitioner's claims of denial of due process because: state prisoner had been brought to trial on one charge and had been convicted of a lesser included offense; trial court gave allegedly erroneous instructions; and submitted improper verdict forms to jury; and defendant was prejudiced by remarks of prosecutor did not present any federal questions. Affirmed.

41. People v. Norman Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. July 7, 1967 252 Cal.App.2d 381 Headnote: Penalty assessment appended as part of bail for contingent benefit of peace officer training fund under provisions of Penal Code was not violative of state and federal constitutional provisions against excessive bail and did not constitute a bill of attainder on basis that it was an arbitrary penalty imposed by Legislature on those convicted. West's Ann.Pen.Code, § 13521; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, § 16; U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 3; § 10, cl. 1. 5 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, Carl H. Allen, J., of burglary in second degree with admitted prior conviction and he appealed. The Court of Appeal, Sims, J., held that where officer heard police radio broadcast concerning burglary of fur store and describing vehicle into which furs had allegedly been placed, later he saw defendant standing alongside described vehicle, and he observed furs in back seat of vehicle, there was reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed felony and, even if seizure of furs were considered a search and seizure, it was reasonable as incidental to legal arrest of defendant, and that fact that statements were elicited from defendant during period of detention before being brought before magistrate did not render statements inadmissible, where they were made before detention extended into an unauthorized period and there was no showing that any illegal detention produced the statements. Affirmed.

42. Dearinger v. U.S. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 27, 1967 378 F.2d 346 Headnote: $20,000 bail was not under circumstances excessive concerning one charged with bank robbery and assault during a bank robbery. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a, d).

Document Summary: Prosecution for bank robbery and assault during a bank robbery. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Southern Division, George H. Boldt, J., entered judgment of conviction, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Merrill, Circuit Judge, held, inter alia, that arrest pursuant to warrant was not illegal on theory that the complaint upon which warrant was issued was insufficient to establish probable cause since it recited only uncorroborated hearsay, where affidavit of FBI agent established that there was probable cause sufficient to support a warrantless arrest, although affiant was not person making arrest but was officer in charge and arresting officer was acting under his direction or instruction. Affirmed.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

43. Rehman v. State of Cal. Supreme Court of the United States October 7, 1964 85 S.Ct. 8 Headnote: Bail of $500,000 may be excessive for insane criminal, although denial of bail would be proper. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 8, 14. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceeding on an application for bail pending an appeal in state courts. Mr. Justice Douglas held that it could not be said that trial judge abused power in denying bail to physician pending appeal from conviction for conspiracy involving variety of actions including assault and fraudulent exaction of fees where record contained evidence to support conclusion that his remaining on bail would constitute immediate, clear and present danger imperiling, jeopardizing, and threatening health, safety and welfare of community. Application denied. See also Cal.App., 37 Cal.Rptr. 697.

44. Kaufman v. U.S. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. December 10, 1963 325 F.2d 305 Headnote: Fixing of excessive bail is unconstitutional. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 37(a), 18 U.S.C.A.

Document Summary: Prosecution for bank robbery. Two defendants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Northern Division, M.D. Crocker, J., of bank robbery and appealed. The Court of Appeals held as to one defendant that orders fixing bail are not reviewable on appeal from judgment of conviction and held as to the other appealing defendant that evidence sustained his conviction for assaulting and putting in jeopardy the lives of various bank employees, notwithstanding lack of testimony that he personally carried any gun into the bank. Affirmed.

45. Cohen v. U.S. Supreme Court of the United States February 14, 1962 82 S.Ct. 526 Headnote: Requirement that bail bond operate also as supersedeas to judgment for payment of fine would render bail excessive in constitutional sense in making it serve purpose for which bail was not intended. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 38(a) (3), 46(a) (2), (c), 18 U.S.C.A.; 18 U.S.C.A. § 3565; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 6 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceeding on an application for clarification of an order admitting the petitioner to bail. Mr. Justice Douglas held that any requirement that bail bond operate also as supersedeas to judgment for payment of fine would render bail excessive in constitutional sense making it serve purpose for which bail was not intended, and that order admitting applicant to bail to insure his appearance and submission to judgment of court upon disposition of certiorari proceeding was not intended to provide security for fine the legality of which the applicant was seeking to have reviewed. Disposition accordingly. See also 297 F.2d 760.

46. Ex parte Newbern Supreme Court of California, In Bank. March 9, 1961 55 Cal.2d 500 Headnote: Fixing bail in amount of $500 pending appeal from intoxication conviction was not excessive when petitioner disclosed alcoholic proclivities and postponement of one proceeding was required because he appeared in an intoxicated condition. West's Ann.Const. art. 1, § 6; West's Ann.Pen.Code, §§ 1272, subd. 2, 1273, 1275. 2 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Habeas corpus proceeding alleging illegal detention after sentencing on two counts of intoxication and arrest on a thire count. The Supreme Court, White, J., held that fixing bail in amount of $500 pending appeal from intoxication coviction, was not excessive when petitioner disclosed alcoholic proclivities

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

and postponement of one proceeding was required because he appeared in an intoxicated condition. Petition denied. See also 180 Cal.App.2d 104, 4 Cal.Rptr. 43; 11 Cal.Rptr. 551.

47. Carlisle v. Landon Supreme Court of the United States August 5, 1953 73 S.Ct. 1179 Headnote: Constitutional provision declaring that excessive bail shall not be required, means that a person may not be capriciously held by demanding bail in such amount that there is in fact a denial of bail, or by detention without bail and without informed reason therefor. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 4 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceedings on application for bail pending appeal in deportation proceedings involving resident alien who had allegedly associated with ‘subversive’ groups. Mr. Justice Douglas held that question whether Attorney General had power to impose new and broad conditions on bail bond of resident alien, which would have required alien to refrain from associating with any person if there was reasonable ground to believe that he was a Communist, was a substantial one, and when his bond had been revoked because of his failure to procure bond in compliance with request of Attorney General, alien was entitled to be admitted to bail while court resolved question as to Attorney General's power. Application granted.

48. U.S. v. Spector United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division. December 14, 1951 102 F.Supp. 75 Headnote: For purposes of applying rule that bail set at higher figure than amount reasonably calculated to fulfill purpose of assuring that accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty is excessive under Eighth Amendment, the narrowness of judicial experience in cases involving Smith Act should serve to broaden bounds of reason within which reasonable persons may differ in fixing amount of bail in such cases. Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., rule 46(c), 18 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8.

Document Summary: A prosecution of William Schneiderman and others for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States prohibited by the Smith Act was consolidated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 13, 18 U.S.C.A., with a prosecution of Frank Efroim Spector and others for a similar offense. The three defendants in the second prosecution moved for reduction of bail. The District Court, Wm. C. Mathes, J., held that no less an amount than the $50,000 bail previously set for each of the defendants would insure the presence of such defendants for trial. Order in accordance with opinion.

49. U.S. v. Spector United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division. December 14, 1951 102 F.Supp. 75 Headnote: Bail set at higher figure than amount reasonably calculated to fulfill purpose of assuring that accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty is “excessive” under Eighth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8.

Document Summary: A prosecution of William Schneiderman and others for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States prohibited by the Smith Act was consolidated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 13, 18 U.S.C.A., with a prosecution of Frank Efroim Spector and others for a similar offense. The three defendants in the second prosecution moved for reduction of bail. The District Court, Wm. C. Mathes, J., held that no less an amount than the $50,000 bail previously set for each of the defendants would insure the presence of such defendants for trial. Order in accordance with opinion.

50. U.S. v. Schneiderman United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division. November 28, 1951 102 F.Supp. 52 Headnote: Bail set at higher figure than amount reasonably calculated to fulfill purpose of assuring that accused will stand trial and submit to sentence of found guilty is “excessive” under Eighth Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Document Summary: A prosecution of William Schneiderman and others for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States prohibited by the Smith Act was consolidated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 13, 18 U.S.C.A., with a prosecution of Frank Efroim Spector and others for a similar offense. The twelve defendants in the first prosecution moved for reduction of bail. The District Court, Wm. C. Mathes, J., held that no less an amount than the $50,000 bail previously set for each of the defendants would insure the presence of the defendants for trial. Order in accordance with opinion. Reversed 193 F.2d 875. See also, D.C., 102 F.Supp. 87; 191 F.2d 692.

51. U.S. v. Schneiderman United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division. November 28, 1951 102 F.Supp. 52 Headnote: For purposes of applying rule that bail set at higher figure than amount reasonably calculated to fulfill purpose of assuring that accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty is excessive under Eighth Amendment, the narrowness of judicial experience in cases involving Smith Act should serve to broaden bounds of reason within which reasonable persons may differ in fixing amount of bail in such cases. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 46(c), 18 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8.

Document Summary: A prosecution of William Schneiderman and others for conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States prohibited by the Smith Act was consolidated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 13, 18 U.S.C.A., with a prosecution of Frank Efroim Spector and others for a similar offense. The twelve defendants in the first prosecution moved for reduction of bail. The District Court, Wm. C. Mathes, J., held that no less an amount than the $50,000 bail previously set for each of the defendants would insure the presence of the defendants for trial. Order in accordance with opinion. Reversed 193 F.2d 875. See also, D.C., 102 F.Supp. 87; 191 F.2d 692.

52. Ex parte Morehead District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California. November 7, 1951 107 Cal.App.2d 346 Headnote: Where defendant was convicted in municipal court on seven counts of misdemeanors involving sexual offenses and the matter was suspended and certified to superior court for proceedings under sexual psychopath act, bail fixed by superior court of $7500 was not excessive in view of defendant's previous record showing that he had been successively adjudged guilty of burglary, grand larceny, violation of Dyer Act and of first degree murder and in view of fact that he had once escaped from prison and was on parole from a prison term at the time of commission of the misdemeanors. West's Ann.Welfare & Inst.Code, § 5501 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, § 6. 2 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Ralph B. Morehead was convicted in the municipal court on seven counts of misdemeanor involving sexual offenses, and the municipal court suspended further proceedings and certified matter to the superior court for proceedings under the sexual psychopath act. The superior court increased bail, and the prisoner was remanded to custody of the sheriff, and the prisoner brought a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court of Appeal, Moore, P. J., held that the superior court had authority to fix bail, and that bail of $7500 was not excessive in view of the prisoner's previous record. Writ discharged and prisoner remanded to custody of sheriff.

53. Stack v. Boyle Supreme Court of the United States November 5, 1951 342 U.S. 1 Headnote: Bail set at higher figure than amount reasonably calculated to fulfill purpose of assuring that accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty is “excessive” under Eighth Amendment. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 371, 2385; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 175 Cases that cite this legal issue

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Document Summary: Proceedings in the matter of the applications of Loretta S. Stack, and others for writs of habeas corpus directed to James J. Boyle, United States Marshal. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the applications, and the applicants appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 192 F.2d 56, affirmed the District Court's decision, and the applicants sought certiorari. The United States Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, granted certiorari and held that the applicants' pretrial bail in the case against them for conspiring to violate the Smith Act had not been fixed by proper methods. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to District Court with directions.

54. Stack v. Boyle Supreme Court of the United States November 5, 1951 342 U.S. 1 Headnote: Where, upon final judgment of conviction for conspiring to violate Smith Act, defendants could face imprisonment of not more than five years and fine of not more than $10,000, fact that four persons previously convicted under Smith Act in different jurisdiction had forfeited bail would not justify fixing pretrial bail of each defendant at $50,000, in absence of evidence relating those four convicted persons to defendants in present case. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 371, 2385; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 19 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceedings in the matter of the applications of Loretta S. Stack, and others for writs of habeas corpus directed to James J. Boyle, United States Marshal. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the applications, and the applicants appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 192 F.2d 56, affirmed the District Court's decision, and the applicants sought certiorari. The United States Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, granted certiorari and held that the applicants' pretrial bail in the case against them for conspiring to violate the Smith Act had not been fixed by proper methods. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to District Court with directions.

55. Stack v. Boyle Supreme Court of the United States November 5, 1951 342 U.S. 1 Headnote: In prosecution for conspiring to violate Smith Act, if bail in amount greater than that usually fixed for serious charges of crime were required in case of any of defendants, that was matter to which evidence should have been directed in hearing, so that constitutional rights of each defendant could be preserved, and, in absence of such showing, fixing of pretrial bail in sum of $50,000 for each defendant could not be squared with statutory and constitutional standards for admission to bail. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385; Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 46(a) (1), (c), 19 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8. 35 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Proceedings in the matter of the applications of Loretta S. Stack, and others for writs of habeas corpus directed to James J. Boyle, United States Marshal. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the applications, and the applicants appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 192 F.2d 56, affirmed the District Court's decision, and the applicants sought certiorari. The United States Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, granted certiorari and held that the applicants' pretrial bail in the case against them for conspiring to violate the Smith Act had not been fixed by proper methods. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to District Court with directions.

56. In re Burnette District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. November 3, 1939 35 Cal.App.2d 358 Headnote: Fixing bail at $100,000 bond or $50,000 cash pending appeal from conviction for rape was not an abuse of discretion, in absence of intervening circumstances. West's Ann.Pen.Code, §1272; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, §6. 5 Cases that cite this legal issue

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

Document Summary: Petition by Huston Burnette for a writ of habeas corpus to secure reduction in amount of bail pending an appeal. Petition for reduction of bail denied and writ theretofore issued discharged.

57. In re Burnette District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. November 3, 1939 35 Cal.App.2d 358 Headnote: Presumptively, pending determination of appeal, accused had been properly convicted, as respects reasonableness of amount of bail fixed by the court. West's Ann.Pen.Code, §1272; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, §6. 3 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Petition by Huston Burnette for a writ of habeas corpus to secure reduction in amount of bail pending an appeal. Petition for reduction of bail denied and writ theretofore issued discharged.

58. In re Burnette District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. November 3, 1939 35 Cal.App.2d 358 Headnote: Bail is not to be deemed excessive merely because accused cannot give the bail required. West's Ann.Pen.Code, §1272; West's Ann.Const. art. 1, §6. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: Petition by Huston Burnette for a writ of habeas corpus to secure reduction in amount of bail pending an appeal. Petition for reduction of bail denied and writ theretofore issued discharged.

59. In re De Mello District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. January 8, 1937 18 Cal.App.2d 407 Headnote: Bail in amount of $2,250 required of defendant in extortion prosecution held not so excessive as to justify granting of writ of habeas corpus.

Document Summary: Application for a writ of habeas corpus by Eugene De Mello. Application denied.

60. In re Horiuchi District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California. May 19, 1930 105 Cal.App. 714 Headnote: $15,000 bail for each defendant indicted for crime of criminal syndicalism held not excessive. Criminal Syndicalism Act, §2, subds. 1, 2, 4 (See West's Ann.Pen.Code, p. 773).

Document Summary: Original application of Tsuji Horiuchi and others for a writ of habeas corpus prayed to be directed to the Sheriff of Imperial County to secure reduction of petitioners' bail. Writ discharged, and petitioners remanded.

61. People v. Eiseman District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. October 7, 1924 69 Cal.App. 143 Headnote: Where defendant was convicted of eight separate charges of felony and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment and bail was imposed as to each, aggregate bail is not excessive, where none of the charges are duplicates and amounts are not separately excessive. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: Appeal from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; Louis H. Ward, Judge. J. J. Eiseman and others were convicted of conspiracy to violate the Corporate Securities Act, and they appeal. On application for reduction of bail. Application denied.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

62. Ex parte Ruef District Court of Appeal, First District, California. March 24, 1908 7 Cal.App. 750 Headnote: Where 116 indictments were filed against petitioner, each charging him with bribing a member of the board of supervisors, an order admitting petitioner to bail in the sum of $10,000 on each charge, save as to certain reindictments for offenses charged in other of the indictments on which the bail was fixed at $5,000 on each charge, was not excessive except as to the reindictments on which bail should only have been required in a nominal amount. 7 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: Application by Abraham Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus sur bail. Writ granted in part. See 89 Pac. 604, 605.

63. Ex parte Duncan Supreme Court of California November 1, 1879 4 P.C.L.J. 484 Headnote: The fact that the prisoner is unable to procure the bail demanded of him is insufficient to show that it is excessive in amount.

Document Summary: This is an application for an order that the prisoner be let to bail “in a reasonable amount,” and that the order of the Municipal Criminal Court, fixing the amount of his bail at the sum of $113,000, be modified in respect to the sum demanded. The petition sets forth that the prisoner is in the custody of the Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco, and confined in the jail of said city and county, awaiting his trial upon ten indictments found against him by the grand jury, “eight of said indictments being for forgery, one for grand larceny, and one for felony in making and publishing false returns as an officer of the Pioneer Land and Loan Association, a corporation.” That one of the indictments for forgery is upon a charge involving the sum of $2,750; another, for forgery, the sum of $1,750; the other six indictments for forgery committed in feloniously altering and uttering 3,170 shares of the capital stock of a corporation called “The Safe...

64. Ex parte Duncan Supreme Court of California January 1, 1879 3 P.C.L.J. 33 Headnote: The fact that the prisoner is unable to procure the bail demanded of him is insufficient to show that it is excessive in amount. 1 Case that cites this legal issue

Document Summary: As observed at the argument, we must assume in this proceeding that the petitioner is guilty of the ten distinct felonies of which he is indicted. We must assume his guilt, though when he shall be tried it may be made to appear that he is wholly innocent of all the charges. We said in Ex parte Ryan, 44 Cal. 558, that “except for the purpose of a fair and impartial trial before a petit jury, the presumption of guilt arises against the prisoner upon the finding of an indictment against him,” and this must be taken to be the settled rule. Assuming, then, that the prisoner is guilty of these several felonies, we are asked to say that the bail demanded of him in the Municipal Criminal Court is “““excessive,” within the inhibition of the Constitution. The question is not whether we would have exacted so great a sum in the first instance had the proceedings to let him to bail been originally before us; in other words, the inquiry is not whether a mere...

65. Ex parte Duncan Supreme Court of California January 1, 1879 3 P.C.L.J. 33 Headnote: The sum of $112,000 is not excessive bail for 10 district felonies, by commission of which the prisoner was alleged to have received that amount.

Document Summary: As observed at the argument, we must assume in this proceeding that the petitioner is guilty of the ten distinct felonies of which he is indicted. We must assume his guilt, though when he shall be tried it may be made to appear that he is wholly innocent of all the charges. We said in Ex parte Ryan, 44 Cal. 558, that “except for the purpose of a fair and impartial trial before a petit jury, the presumption of guilt arises

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail

against the prisoner upon the finding of an indictment against him,” and this must be taken to be the settled rule. Assuming, then, that the prisoner is guilty of these several felonies, we are asked to say that the bail demanded of him in the Municipal Criminal Court is “““excessive,” within the inhibition of the Constitution. The question is not whether we would have exacted so great a sum in the first instance had the proceedings to let him to bail been originally before us; in other words, the inquiry is not whether a mere...

66. Ex parte Ryan Supreme Court of California October 1, 1872 44 Cal. 555 Headnote: Fifteen thousand dollars is not excessive on an indictment for assault with intent to murder. 4 Cases that cite this legal issue

Document Summary: SUMMARY THE petitioner was brought before Mr. Chief Justice WALLACE, at chambers, on an application to admit him to bail in a sum less than the amount fixed by the committing magistrate-the Municipal Criminal Court of the City and County of San Francisco having refused to entertain a similar application. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17