Dickson: Only judges to decide pretrial release

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In Indiana, many individuals arrested for criminal offenses languish behind bars because they do not have the resources to buy their way out prior to trial.

Whether cash or surety bond, often courts use money as a condition for pretrial release. Consequently, people of limited means may be held in the county jail awaiting trial longer than they would be sentenced to serve if convicted of the crime.

“That’s not fair,” said Indiana Justice Brent Dickson. “We have a presumption of innocence and yet we keep people in jail because they’re not paying money. That’s wrong.”

Dickson Dickson

To provide another option, Dickson, while chief justice, led the Indiana Supreme Court to establish the Committee to Study Evidence-Based Pretrial Release. The group, consisting of judges, legislators, prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers, is tasked with examining and evaluating risk-assessment tools used by courts around the country to determine which defendants to release before trial. At the end of its review, the committee will submit recommendations to the Supreme Court for implementation of the tools.

Dickson formed the study committee, in part, to ensure the judiciary retains its function of making decisions regarding pretrial release. He pointed to attempts in the Legislature to alter the way trial judges handle pretrial release and bail.

Last summer, when the Commission on Courts tried to approve a proposed bill that would have allowed defendants to choose between a surety bond and cash bail, Dickson pushed back. He raised concerns that the measure would limit judges’ ability to release defendants on their own recognizance and to use risk-assessment tools when deciding whom to release and under what conditions.

During the 2014 session of the Indiana General Assembly, two bills concerning bail were introduced in the Senate, but both stalled in committees.

Dickson drew a line between the responsibility of the judiciary and the purview of the Legislature. Surety bonds are a product of the insurance industry, he said, and certainly the Statehouse can regulate the insurance industry.

“But anything having to do with the way the courts use these or anything that might affect the judge’s discretion to decide how best to ensure that someone will return for trial is exclusively a judicial function,” Dickson said. “And we’re trying to help our trial judges responsibly exercise that function.”

Cash or bond

St. Joseph County is one of a handful of counties in Indiana to rarely use surety bonds, primarily requiring defendants to post cash bonds to be released. The money may be subsequently applied to cover any fees, fines or attorney costs, said St. Joseph Circuit Judge Michael Gotsch. He disputed a common contention among bail bond agents that the funds are used as a revenue stream for the court.

sexton Sexton

Gotsch, a member of the study committee, questioned the need for surety bonds. He noted that in the 1800s and 1900s, bail bond agents were necessary because people could not always access their money. But now with ATMs, they can get cash at any time to bail someone out of jail.

Dickson said he does not intend for the study committee to look for ways to abolish the surety bail system in Indiana.

Lee Sexton, president of the Indiana Surety Bail Agents Association, agreed some people who are arrested “truly deserve” to be released on their own recognizance, such as those accused of minor thefts and public intoxication.

However, Sexton asked in all the conversations about pretrial release, where is the concern for the victims of violent crime?

Bail agents, he said, help provide victims some relief by taking responsibility for the individuals arrested for serious crimes like battery, burglary, drug dealing and rape. The agents keep tabs on these offenders and ensure their appearance in court. Agents have to pay the full bail amount for any defendant who fails to appear, giving agents an incentive to find them and bring them back to the jurisdiction to stand trial.

This is done, Sexton said, at no cost to the taxpayers. He charged that pretrial release programs, on the other hand, will pull from public coffers because the state or local governments will be taking over the duties performed by bond agents.

Sexton also said his association would have liked a seat on the study committee. The agents want the opportunity to tell their story.

Dickson said the committee did not need input from the bond agents.

“This is not about surety bonds,” Dickson said. “This is about how judges do things without surety bonds for people who aren’t dangerous.”

Need for an alternative

Risk-assessment tools are touted as providing information to judges about whether an offender will reappear for court dates and whether conditions, like enrollment in a drug counseling program or electronic monitoring, should be a part of the release.

Dickson said the extensive work in evidence-based practices for assessing risk also encouraged him to convene the study committee. The research has shown, he said, communities can save taxpayer dollars and reform defendants when courts employ these proven methods to determine who should be released without bail.

In St. Joseph County, Gotsch sees a need for an alternative.

He pointed to the local jail where defendants who cannot afford bail, including those arrested for minor offenses, can stay in jail for 30 to 90 days before they get to the courtroom. Then, he said, they are usually sentenced to time served for crimes that would have put them in jail for just a few days.

The situation is not unique to northern Indiana. Citing statewide statistics presented to the study committee, Gotsch said 67 percent of individuals in Indiana jails are being held pretrial.

Taking such a long time to adjudicate crimes is the reality. Gotsch conceded courts should look for ways to move faster but the process to prepare and hold a trial takes time.

“I think judges need to look at the whole situation and recognize we’re holding a lot of people pretrial and the state is spending a lot of money to hold them pretrial and it may not be the best solution,” Gotsch said.

Dickson hopes the study committee will offer at least some preliminary recommendations by the end of the year. He wants the group to formulate standards to help trial judges on how to use the risk-assessment tools and possibly develop some guidelines outlining how much weight should be given to risk assessment versus other factors.

“I definitely do not want to inhibit the full discretion of our trial judges,” Dickson said. “But I do want to encourage them to release non-serious arrestees for non-serious crimes whenever possible and to use the risk-assessment tool to help make that decision.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?