NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A judge in Orange County on Tuesday imposed $5,000 bail on a man who has been jailed for seven months and says he has no job and no way to pay, raising renewed questions about how cash bail advances fairness in the court system.
In Department Eight of the Newport Beach Harbor Justice Center, Judge Susan Lee set bail despite the man’s extended time in custody and his claimed inability to afford release.
The accused has been in Orange County Jail for seven months. Because of this, he cannot work and, therefore, cannot afford his bail. This hearing was called to discuss the issue of bail, considering the accused has been in the county jail for more than half a year.
The accused’s public defender stated that, if released, the accused had a place to stay with his father and that, before the arrest, he worked in his father’s carpentry shop.
The deputy district attorney argued that the state of California would like to see statutory bail imposed for this case. The prosecutor discussed evidence obtained by police. The accused and the victim had an argument during which the accused attempted to grab the victim’s phone, which the victim held away. He then bear-hugged the victim from behind and bit the victim four times on the back “for approximately one minute each,” according to the prosecutor. Eventually, the victim’s mother pulled the accused off the victim.
After calling a sidebar, Judge Lee ordered a firearms relinquishment, a no-contact protective order and $5,000 bail. Judge Lee set bail below the statutory limit despite the accused’s two charges of corporal injury and two separate charges of battery and vandalism. The judge cited the Humphrey case as a factor in setting bail below the statutory limit.
The Humphrey case was ruled on by the California Supreme Court in 2021, in which Kenneth Humphrey appealed to the court. He claimed, “No person should lose the right to liberty simply because that person can’t afford to post bail,” according to Justice Cuéllar. In the opinion of the court, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote: “The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.” The justice further argued that there are other measures, such as electronic monitoring devices, treatment or community housing, which can serve as supervision measures to protect public safety from potentially dangerous people.
The School of Law at the University of Washington explains the purpose of bail in an article addressing pretrial release. It explains that “bail is this middle ground where you can require them to put up some amount of money — or, in some states, also allow property as collateral — where if you don’t show up, you forfeit the bail.” This is the middle ground between incarcerating a potentially innocent person before trial and letting a potentially guilty and dangerous person roam free.
The article also questions what happens if someone, as in the Newport Beach case above, cannot pay bail. It states: “This is one of those things where people can lose out on a tremendous amount of their livelihood. This is where even just being accused of a crime — even if you’re completely innocent — could tank your life and your well-being… And so, it doesn’t seem like the system is actually working there.”
The University of Washington School of Law concludes by arguing that there is so much “technology available today with mass surveillance, facial recognition… is a cash-based bail system really necessary anymore?”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
