Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge setting bail must consider the defendant's financial resources, although the Constitution does not require bail to be affordable. If unaffordable bail is likely to result in long-term pretrial detention, the judge must provide written or orally recorded findings and reasons, and any bail amount must be no higher than necessary to ensure the defendant's appearance. The court reversed the single justice's judgment and remanded for a new bail hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a judge setting bail under G. L. c. 276, § 57 or § 58 must consider the defendant's financial resources.
- Whether the Constitution requires bail to be affordable to the defendant.
- What due process procedures apply when bail exceeds a defendant's ability to pay and thereby causes long-term pretrial detention.
- Whether the Superior Court's bail order complied with those requirements.
- Whether the single justice properly denied relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Holdings
- A judge setting bail must consider the defendant's financial resources, even though G. L. c. 276, § 57 does not expressly list financial resources as a factor.
- A defendant is not constitutionally entitled to bail that he or she can afford. Bail may exceed the defendant's financial means if it is no higher than necessary to assure the defendant's appearance and other relevant considerations justify it.
- When a defendant appears unable to post bail and the amount will likely result in long-term pretrial detention, the judge must make written or orally recorded findings and state reasons confirming consideration of the defendant's financial resources, explaining how the bail amount was calculated, and explaining why no less restrictive financial or nonfinancial conditions will assure the defendant's appearance.
- A judge may not use an unattainable bail amount to detain a defendant because the defendant is dangerous. If the Commonwealth seeks detention based on dangerousness, it must proceed under G. L. c. 276, § 58A and comply with that statute's procedural requirements.
- When a bail order is reconsidered or reviewed after the defendant has been detained because of inability to post bail, the judge must consider the length of pretrial detention and the equities of the case.
Key quotations
“We conclude that in setting the amount of bail, whether under G. L. c. 276, § 57 or § 58, a judge must consider a defendant's financial resources, but is not required to set bail in an amount the defendant can afford if other relevant considerations weigh more heavily than the defendant's ability to provide the necessary security for his appearance at trial.” (477 Mass. at 694-695)
“Where, based on the judge's consideration of all the circumstances, including the record of defaults and other factors relevant to the likelihood of the defendant's appearance for trial, neither alternative nonfinancial conditions nor a bail amount the defendant can afford will adequately assure his appearance for trial, the judge may set bail at a higher amount, but no higher than necessary to ensure the defendant's appearance for trial.” (477 Mass. at 695)
“We conclude further that where it appears that a defendant lacks the financial resources to post the amount of bail set, such that his indigency likely will result in a long-term pretrial detention, the judge must provide written or orally recorded findings of fact and a statement of reasons for the bail decision.” (477 Mass. at 695)
“A defendant is not constitutionally entitled to an affordable bail, as we discussed above.” (477 Mass. at 703)
“Where, based on the judge's consideration of all the relevant circumstances, neither alternative nonfinancial conditions nor an amount the defendant can afford will adequately assure his appearance for trial, it is permissible to set bail at a higher amount, but no higher than necessary to ensure the defendant's appearance.” (477 Mass. at 703-704)
“Using unattainable bail to detain a defendant because he is dangerous is improper.” (477 Mass. at 704)
“The statement must confirm the judge's consideration of the defendant's financial resources, explain how the bail amount was calculated, and state why, notwithstanding the fact that the bail amount will likely result in the defendant's detention, the defendant's risk of flight is so great that no alternative, less restrictive financial or nonfinancial conditions will suffice to assure his or her presence at future court proceedings.” (477 Mass. at 705)
Factual background
Brangan was arrested after police found his thumbprint on a note used in a Springfield bank robbery. He was on probation from a prior prison sentence for child rape and related offenses when arrested, and bail was set at $50,000 cash or $500,000 surety on the robbery charge, plus bail on the probation violation. Brangan was indigent and remained detained for more than three and one-half years because he could not post the bail. The record did not show that the Superior Court judge meaningfully considered his financial resources, explained how the bail amount was calculated, or addressed his proposal for lower cash bail with GPS monitoring.
Procedural history
Brangan was indicted for armed robbery while masked and was also subject to a probation surrender proceeding. The Superior Court set bail at amounts Brangan could not afford, and later reduced but did not eliminate the financial conditions. After multiple unsuccessful petitions and bail hearings in the county court and Superior Court, a single justice denied his fourth petition. The Supreme Judicial Court accepted the appeal, reversed the single justice's order, and remanded for a new bail hearing.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the county court for entry of an order directing the Superior Court judge to conduct a new bail hearing for Brangan as soon as possible, applying the standards stated in the opinion.