ILNews

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.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT