Ex parte Wilding

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama denied Albert Wilding’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the Court of Criminal Appeals’ order vacating a trial court’s decision to set bail in his capital-murder case. The court held that the trial court had not applied the governing presumption of guilt applicable to a defendant held under a capital indictment, and that the Court of Criminal Appeals had a sufficient legal basis to issue mandamus.

Holdings

1. A defendant imprisoned for a capital offense by virtue of an indictment is presumed guilty in the highest degree and, to obtain bail as a matter of right, must overcome that presumption by proof.
2. The Court of Criminal Appeals had a sufficient legal basis to issue mandamus because the circuit court's order did not address Wilding's burden to overcome the indictment's presumption of guilt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals properly issued a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order setting bail for a defendant held under an indictment for a capital offense.
2. Whether a capital defendant held under indictment bears the burden of overcoming the indictment's presumption of guilt before being entitled to bail as a matter of right.
3. Whether the Montgomery Circuit Court's bail order constituted a clear error subject to correction by mandamus.

Disposition

writ_denied