What is a Humphrey Hearing in Relation to a Bail?
In March 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Kenneth Humphrey, a case that had become a major political and legal debate over cash bail.
The court acknowledged that traditional cash bail primarily serves the state's interest in detaining defendants who pose a flight risk, threaten public safety, or endanger victims.
In reality, defendants are often held before trial not because of concerns about public safety or flight risk, but because they cannot afford bail. Essentially, they can't pay the amount specified in the bail schedule.
The court ruled that defendants cannot be detained just because they cannot pay bail. Additionally, there must be clear and convincing proof that detention is essential for public safety.
Each county in California has a uniform bail schedule created periodically by a committee. Bail amounts depend on the crime type, the defendant's criminal history or probation status, and other factors.
In practice, many prosecutors often request, and judges frequently impose, "schedule" bail for most defendants.
Challenging California's Bail System
Kenneth Humphrey was joined in his appeal by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who described challenging this system as an urgent matter.
In the appeal, he emphasized that no one should forfeit their freedom just because they "can't afford to post bail." The Supreme Court agreed, reinforcing the importance of fairness and justice in bail decisions, and reached important rulings:
- Conditioning a defendant's pretrial release only on their ability to pay bail is unconstitutional since other conditions, such as electronic monitoring, can adequately ensure public safety.
- When a financial condition is relevant, the court must consider the defendant's ability to pay when setting bail, instead of solely relying on the county's bail schedule.
- In exceptional cases where no conditions can adequately ensure public safety, the court may detain a defendant without bail. However, this is only permitted after clear and convincing evidence shows that no other conditions will suffice.
Explanation of the Humphrey Case
In the Humphrey case, he was arrested on May 23, 2017, marking another incident in a pattern of lifelong drug and alcohol addiction. The trial court set a $600,000 cash bond for charges including residential burglary, injuring an elderly victim, and misdemeanor theft.
During the court hearing, his public defender requested his own recognizance release, which would allow him to be released before trial without posting cash bail.
This O.R. request was made considering his age and other factors. The prosecutor claimed that Humphrey had four previous "strike" convictions under California's three-strikes law and four prior serious felony robbery convictions.
After Humphrey's defense lawyer requested reconsideration of bail on multiple grounds, the trial court judge lowered the bail to $350,000 but again declined the request for release on own recognizance.
Since the court did not consider Humphrey's financial inability to pay, he was entitled to a new bail hearing.
Supreme Court's Examination of the Humphrey Case
The California Supreme Court's review of the case is significant because of its procedural background. In the initial appeal, Humphrey successfully argued before the Court of Appeals that the trial court's omission to consider his financial inability to pay infringed on his constitutional rights.
The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court, which approved his pretrial release with specific conditions:
- Engaging in drug treatment.
- Submitting to electronic monitoring, and
- Issuing a stay-away order to protect the victim.
Weeks after Humphrey's court victory, several entities, including the San Francisco District Attorney's office, filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking review of the constitutionality of cash bail.
They chose to pursue the review even though Humphrey was no longer detained or under cash bail, citing the issue as "important" and "capable of repetition."
In simple terms, the California Supreme Court considered it equally important to review and provide guidance for future cases.
Supreme Court's Decision on Pretrial Detention
Various notable sociological discoveries influenced the Supreme Court's decisions. They pointed to studies showing that pretrial detention raises the chances of a defendant losing their job, housing, and child custody.
Additionally, the court's observations on how mass pretrial detention creates financial strain on taxpayers and disparities between California and other states underscore the need for bail reform to promote fairness and fiscal responsibility.
The court also observed disparities between California and other states in how pretrial defendants are treated. For instance, defendants in major urban counties in California are detained at significantly higher rates before trial than those in similar counties elsewhere.
They suggested that the disparity might stem from the significantly higher cash amounts ordered by courts. For instance, in California, the median cash bail needed for release is $50,000, compared to only $10,000 in other parts of the United States.
Due Process and Equal Protection Principles
The court's grounding of its decision in due process and equal protection principles highlights the constitutional basis for bail reform, making it essential reading for legal professionals and students interested in constitutional law and criminal justice reform.
Their final ruling rejected the stance of many county District Attorneys, who claimed that only the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive bail could justify Humphrey's relief.
However, the court did leave unresolved a major issue: whether the bail amounts of $600,000 and $350,000 would have violated the Eighth Amendment.
The Supreme Court cited at the end of their opinion that "liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception."
It remains uncertain whether all criminal defendants in the busy arraignment courts of major California cities will have access to a comprehensive review of their financial ability to pay.
Nonetheless, the Humphrey case provides a compelling defense argument for indigent clients seeking pretrial release, particularly where reliance on the county bail schedule often results in detention.
For further details or a case review, contact the California criminal defense attorneys at Cron, Israels & Stark.
Related Content: