In re Kenneth Humphrey
| In re Kenneth Humphrey | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | IN RE: KENNETH HUMPHREY, on Habeas Corpus. |
| Holding | |
| Undecided at Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California, held that setting money bail in an amount a defendant cannot possibly afford amounts to unconstitutional detention of a person before they have been convicted of a crime. | |
In re Kenneth Humphrey is a case pending before the California Supreme Court that concerns whether it is a violation of due process and equal protection to imprison defendants prior to trial solely because they cannot afford to pay bail.[1]
Background
California’s bail system enables judges to set bail even when it is unaffordable to the defendant and not based on a finding that the defendant would pose a threat to society.[2] Bail reform advocates in California have criticized this practice, arguing that it does not promote public safety and unfairly incarcerates the poor while releasing wealthier defendants with similar charges.[2]
Lawsuit
In May of 2017, Kenneth Humphrey was held in jail because he was unable to pay the $350,000 bail set after his arrest for allegedly robbing and threatening his neighbor.[3] Mr. Humphrey, represented by Paul Myslin and Chesa Boudin at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as well as Alec Karakatsanis of Civil Rights Corps, appealed the bail determination and argued that it was unconstitutional for judges to set a bail amount without considering the defendant’s ability to pay or non-monetary alternatives.[4]
First District Court of Appeal Ruling
In January of 2018, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Humphrey, holding that California’s money bail system violated due process and equal protection.[2] The ruling required trial court judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay as well as non-monetary options for release when determining a bail amount or setting conditions of release.[2] The opinion was authored by Presiding Judge Anthony Kline, joined by Judges Therese M. Stewart and Marla J. Miller.[5]
Following this order, Mr. Humphrey was released from jail in May of 2018.[6] Later that month the California Supreme Court agreed to review the case.[1]
References
- ^ a b "State Supreme Court to review landmark case on money bail system - SFChronicle.com". www.sfchronicle.com. 24 May 2018. Retrieved 13 May 2019.
- ^ a b c d Egelko, Bob (26 January 2018). "Court ruling could change state's approach to bail". SFGate. Retrieved 13 May 2019.
- ^ Boudin, Jeff Adachi and Chesa. "He stole $5 and a bottle of cologne. His bail was set at $350,000". latimes.com. Retrieved 13 May 2019.
- ^ "S.F. Man Whose Case Upended California's Bail System Wins Release". KQED. 4 May 2018. Retrieved 13 May 2019.
- ^ In Re: Kenneth Humphrey, on Habeas Corpus, 19 Cal. App. 5th 1006, 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 64 A152056 (CA Ct. App. January 25, 2018).
- ^ "SF Man in center of state bail reform released from jail". The San Francisco Examiner. 10 May 2018. Retrieved 13 May 2019.