NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A judge set $2,500 bail Monday at the Newport Beach Harbor Justice Center after a public defender argued the amount was excessive and unconstitutional given the accused’s inability to pay.
The accused appeared in custody on charges in a new case that were not publicly disclosed. Judge Susan M. Lee said there were two prior warrants for the accused’s arrest, which the judge removed before proceeding to set bail.
In light of the accused’s financial hardship, the public defender asked for a reconsideration of the bail amount. She reiterated that keeping her incarcerated because of her inability to pay was a violation of due process and invalidated her fundamental rights.
Judge Lee said she took the statement and the principles of Humphrey’s law into consideration in the case. She stated that prosecutors wished to maintain the posted bail in reference to the accused’s prior failures to appear in court. The judge agreed with the prosecution that, given the three open cases and her warrant status, it was justifiable to maintain the amount.
The term Humphrey’s Law comes from the In re Humphrey case, where the California Supreme Court’s ruling on bail prompted changes by establishing a reformed bail system in California. As explained by the Harvard Law Review, the court agreed that bail should be used as a tool to guarantee a person’s reappearance in court instead of serving as a punitive measure that penalizes economic circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled that bail set should reflect a person’s ability to pay, emphasizing that denying bail or release because of financial hardship was a constitutional violation. The case reflected the importance of relying on evidence rather than financial penalties to determine incarceration.
The ruling brought changes to California’s application of bail in the courtroom by providing protections for detainees’ rights and emphasizing the importance of fairness in the treatment of accused persons as a way to uphold the integrity of the legal system. In addition to considering a person’s ability to pay, personal circumstances and the potential risk their behavior might pose to the community should also be factored into legal consideration when determining bail.
The public defender provided a counterargument, asserting that the accused’s charges were not violent in nature. She insisted the high bail was disproportionate to the alleged offense and that her request to remove fees was reasonable.
The court imposed $2,500 bail and released her on bond. The judge supported the prosecution’s request because of the accused’s warrant status and ordered her to comply with protective restraining orders that restrict her from going to locations that are off-limits as part of her sentence.
The accused pleaded not guilty and said, “I’m not being heard,” to her public defender as bail was set at $2,500. She asked for the judge’s name, stating she had witnesses who could testify to where she was.
She continued that it was not right for her to remain in custody for something that was not true.
A jury trial will be held May 11 for two of her charges, and her third charge will be tried in a second jury trial on May 12.
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.
