Laws

i, 17; Ala Code, 3669 Post Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 0:30:34 +0000
West v Colquitt, 71 Ga 559 4 Ex p Wray, 30 Mis S 673; Ex p Bridewell, 57 Mis S 39; Ullery v Co M, 8B Mo N (Ky) 3; Ready v Co M, 9 Dana (Ky) 38; Co M v Keeper of Prison, 2 Ash M (Pa) 227; Shore v State, 6 Mo 640; Foley v People, i 111 57; Ex p Beacon, 12 Tex App 318; In re Wilson (Tex App, 1890), 13 S W Rep 609; In re Foulk (Tex App, 1890), 13 S W Rep 746; Ex p Bryant, 34 Ala 270; Ex P Wolff, 57Cal94; State v Summons, 19 Ohio 139; Ex p Dykes, 83 Ala 114 In New Jersey, while the right to bail in capital cases is admitted, it is exercised rarely and with great cau- tio N State v Rockafellow, 6 N J L 332 Murder First Degre e In those ju- risdictions where only murder in the first degree is a capital offense, the accused is entitled to bail as of right, except where the charge is murder in the first degree and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great. Finch v State, 15 Fla 634; Ex p Bry- ant, 34 Ala 270; Ex p Vaughan, 44 Ala 417; Drury v Stat e 25 Tex 45; Shore v State, 6 Mo 640; Ex p Wolff, or presumption exists and is shown by the evidence, bail in capital cases is not a matter of right, and is usually denie d 1 57Cal94; State v Klingman, 14 Iowa 404 In Alabama all persons are entitled to bail as matter of right, unless, on the evidence, the court is of opinion that the person accused is guilty of murder in the first degre e Ala ConSt, art. i, 17; Ala Code, 3669, 3670; Ex p McCrary, 22 Ala 65; Ex P Simonton, 9 Port (Ala) 390 And the opinion of the lower court that the prisoner is guilty and the refusing of bail may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Jones, 3 Wash (U S) Post Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 0:16:09 +0000
Ala Code, 3673; Ex p Banks, 28 Ala 89 Indiana In Ex p Colter, 35 Ind 109, it was held, under a constitution providing that "murder or treason shall not be bailable when," etc, that "murder" included murder in the second degre e 1 Alabama Ex p Simonton, 9 Port. (Ala) 390; Ex p Carroll, 36 Ala 300; Ex p Croom, 19 Ala 561; Ex p McCrary, 22 Ala 65; Ex p Johnson, 18 Ala 414; Ex p McAnally, 53 Ala 495, 25 A M Rep 646; Ex p Bryant, 34 Ala 270; Ex p Banks, 28 Ala 89; Ex p Hammock, 78 Ala 414; Ex p Vaughan, 44 Ala 417 Arkansa S Ex p Bird, 24 Ark 275; Ex p White, 9 Ark 222 California People v Perdue, 48 Ca L 552; People v Smith, iCal9; In re Troia, 64Cal152; People v Tinder, 19Cal539; Ex p Hoge, 48 Ca L3 Georgia State v Wicks, R M Charlt ( Ga) 139; State v Howell, R M Charlt ( Ga)i2 O Illinoi S Lynch v People, 38 111 494: Foley v People, i 111 57 Indiana Ex p Heffren, 27 Ind 87; Lumm v State, 3 Ind 293; Ex p Walton, 79 Ind 600; Ex p Jones, 55 Ind 176; Ex p Colter, 35 Ind 109 KentucKy Ullery v Co M, 8B Mo N (KyO 3; Ready v Co M, 9 Dana (Ky)38 Louisiana State v Brusle, 34 La An N 61; Statel Y Brewster, 35 La z'ri (-in) UIJJBJ^ i 'jiouag vz Xaojujaj, :Sog -uuy Massachusett S Dunlap v Bartlett, 10 Gray (Mas S) 282 Mississipp I Ex p Wray, 30 Mis S 673; Street v State, 43 Miss, i; Beall v State, 39 Mis S 715; Ex p Forten- berry, 53 Mis S 428; Ex p Bridewell, 57 Mis S 39 Missour I Shore v State, 6 Mo 640; In re Alexander, 59 Mo 599 New Hampshire State v McNab, 20 N H 160 New Jerse Y State v Rockafellow, 6 N J L 332 New York People v Van Home, 8 Barb ( N Y) 158; People v Goodwin, 5 N Y City Hall Re C n; People v Dixon, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 651; Ex p Taylor, 5 Co W ( N Y) 39; Peo- ple v Hyler, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 570; People v Perry, 8 Abb Pr, N S ( N Y Supreme Ct) 27; People v Shattuck, 6 Abb N Ca S ( N Y SupeRCt) 33 Ohio State v Summons, 19 Ohio 139; Kendle v Tarbell, 24 Ohio St 196 Pennsylvania Co M v Keeper of Prison, 2 Ash M (Pa) 227 South Carolina State v Holmes, 3 Strob H ( S Car) 272; State v Arthur, i McMul L ( S Car) 456; State v Hill, i Tread W ( S Car) 242 Texa S Zembrod v State, 25 Tex 519; Thompson v State, 25 Tex Supp 395; Ex p Mosby, 31 Tex 566; Thomas v State, 40 Tex 6; McCoy v State, 25 Tex 33; Drury v State', 25 Tex 45 ; Ex p Foster, 5 Tex App 625 ; Ex p Randon, 12 Tex App 145; Ex P Beacon, 12 Tex App 318; Ruston v State, 15 Tex App 324; Ex / Coldiron, 15 Tex App 464; Moore v State, 31 Tex 572 VirginiaCo M v Semmes, n Leigh ( Va) 696; Archer's Case, 6 Gratt ( Va) 705; Green v Co M, n Leigh ( Va) 709 United State S U S v Hamilton, 3 Dal L (U S) 17; U S . Jones, 3 Wash (U S) 209; U S v Stewart, 2 Dal L (U S) 343- Englan d In re Barronet, I E L B L r, 72 E C L i; Rex v Scaife, 9 Dow L Pr Ca S 553; Reg v Williams, 8 Dow L Pr Ca S 301 Punishment Discretionar Y Where capital offenses are not bailable, a person accused of an offense for which the jury, in its discretion, may inflict capital punishment, cannot be baile d Ex p Dusenberry, 97 Mo 504 An offense is capital, within the meaning of a constitutional provision as to bail, where it may be punished ManslaughTer In England a person accused of manslaughter may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the court, but not as of right ; and this rule has sometimes been applied her e 1 Felony Generall Y In cases of felony the English rule was to re- fuse bail, unless it stood indifferent on the evidence whether the accused was guilty or not ; and this rule has been applied here in some case S 2 Treaso N Persons accused of treason have been admitted to bail both before and after indictment; but the power to bail in such cases is exercised with extreme cautio N 3 Misdemeanor S It has always been the rule to allow bail as of course to those accused of misdemeanors, at any stage of the pro- ceedings before final commitment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

was founded could not be examine Post Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 0:06:07 +0000
4 C AFTER INDICTMENT. It has been held in some cases that bail would not be allowed after indictment, particularly in the higher grades of offenses, on the ground that the indictment raised a presumption of guilt, and the evidence on which it .was founded could not be examine d 5 The rule generally applied is with death, although the jury, on a trial therefor, have power to provide in their verdict for imprisonment for life instead of the death punishment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

The failure of the grand Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:47:59 +0000
Ex p Fortenberry, 53 Mis S 428; Ex p McCrary, 22 Ala 65 Statutory Exceptio N Where the law provides that all prisoners shall be bailable unless for capital offenses, and murder in the first degree is made a capital offense, but it is also pro- vided that a person under seventeen years of age who commits murder in the first degree cannot be punished capitally held, that where a person under seventeen years of age commits murder in the first degree he is en- titled, as a right, to be baile d Ex p Walker, 28 Tex App 246 Guilt Confesse d -Where the person accused of murder confesses his guilt, sail should be refuse d State v Ab- xt, R M Charlt ( Ga) 244; In re Barronet, I E L B L i, 72 E C 1 Rex v, Dalton, 2 Str A 911; Rex Magrath, 2 Str A 1242; Armstrong Lisle, i Sal K 60; Lord Mohun's 'ase, i Sal K 104; Rex v Jones, iB Ai d 209; Rex v Massey, 6 M S 108; People v Beigler, 2 P Ark CR"a S ( N Y) 316; People v Van lorne, 8 Barb ( N Y) 158; People Goodwin, I Whee L CRCa S ( N ) 443; State v McNab, 20 N H 160 2 In re Barronet, I E L B L I, 72 E C L i; Rex v Wyer, 2 T R77; Rex v Kirk, 12 Mo d 304; People v Good- win, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Y) 443; People v Perry, 8 Abb Pr, N S ( N Y Supreme Ct) 29; People v Hyler, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 570; Ex p Taylor, 5 Co W ( N Y) 39; Moore v State, 31 Tex 572 Mitigating Circumstance S In cases of felony, where mitigating circum- stances are shown, the accused may be admitted to bai L U S v Petit, n Fed Rep 58; State v Mairs, I N J L 335; State v Wicks, R M Charlt ( Ga) 139; State v Howell, R M Charlt ( Ga) 120; Summerfield v Co M, 2 Ro b ( Va) 767; Green v Co M, n Leigh ( Va) 709 3 Kendall's Case, 5 Mo d 78; U S v Hamilton, 3 Bal L (U S) 17; U S v Stewart, 2 Bal L (U S) 345; Bavis' Case, Chase's Bee (U S) i; Rex v Wyndham, i Str A 2 4 Marriot's Case, r Sal K 104; Rex v Judd, 2 T R255; Reg v Badger, 7 JuR216; Bunlap v Bartlett, 10 Gray (Mas S) 282, 69 A M Bee 320; People v Johnson, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 322; People -v Kennedy, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 312; People v Berber- rich, 20 Barb ( N Y) 224 5 Lord Mohun's Case, i Sal K 104; Kendle v Tarbell, 24 Ohio St 196; State v Sheriff ( La, 1887), 3 So Rep 350; State S Merrick, lo La An N 424; Territory v M'Farlane, I Martin ( La) 216 that the presumption of guilt raised by an indictment may be rebutted, and when rebutted bail will be allowe d 1 d DELAY OF" TRIAL Unnecessary Dela Y A person accused of crime is entitled to a speedy trial, and if his trial be unnecessarily delayed it is good ground for admitting him to bail ; and where the prosecution allows two terms to pass without bringing on the trial, it is usually considered such delay as entitles the accused to be admitted to bai L 2 Unavoidable Dela Y Where the delay of trial is unavoidable and without fault on the part of the prosecution, it is not ground for admitting the accused to bai L 3 1 Alabama See Ex p Nettles, 58 Ala 268 Arkansa S Ex p White, 9 Ark 222; JSx p Kittrel, 20 Ark 499 California People v Tinder, 19 Ca L 539 Illinoi S Lynch v People, 38 111 494; People v McKay, 40 111 386 Indiana Lumm v State, 3 Ind 293; Ex p Walton, 79 Ind 600; Ex p Bare, 76 Ind 378; Ex p Hock, 68 Ind 206; Ex p Jones, 55 Ind 176; Ex p Kendall, 100 Ind 599; Ex p Suther- lin, 56 Ind 595; Ex p Moore, 30 Ind 197; Ex p Halpine, 30 Ind 254; Ex p Heffren, 27 Ind 87 Louisiana Territory v Benoit, I Martin ( La) 192 Mississipp I Ex p Wray, 30 Mis S 673; Street v State, 43 Miss, i; Ex p Pattison, 56 Mis S 161 Missour I In re Alexander, 59 Mo 598: Shore v State, 6 Mo 640 New York People v Van Home, S Barb ( N Y) 158; People v Hyler, 2 P Ark CRCa S ( N Y) 570; People v Perry, 8 Abb Pr, N S ( N Y Su- preme Ct) 27; People v McLeod, i Hill( N Y)377- Texa S Ex p Randon, 12 Tex App 145; Ex p Bomar, 9 Tex App 610; Ex p Jones, 31 Tex Cri M Rep 422; In re Robertson (Tex App, 1889), 12 S W Rep 1136; Ex p Smith, 26 Tex App 134; Miller v State, 42 Tex 309 Englan d Reg v Andrews, 2 d L 10'; Reg v Chapman, 8 C p 558, 34 E C L 523; Lord Mohun's Case, I Sal K 104 Compare People v Dixon, 3 Abb Pr ( N Y Supreme Ct) 395; People v De Graff, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Y) 141; State v Dew, Taylor (N Car) 142 Indictment for murder raises a pre- sumption of guilt in the highest de- gree, and the prisoner must overcome this presumption by proof before he can be admitted to bai L Ex p Vaughan, 44 Ala 417; Ex p Goans, 99 Mo 193; Ex p Dusenberry, 97 Mo 504 " The officer hearing the case should require the production of all the avail- able testimony for the prosecution, and should, if necessary, postpone the hearing until it can be obtaine d" Ex P Bridewell, 57 Mis S 39 2 Fitzpatrick's Case, i Sal K 103; Barnly's Case, 5 Mo d 323; Crosby's Case, 12 Mo d 66; Klock v People, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 676; People v Perry, 8 Abb Pr, N S ( N Y Su- preme Ct) 27; Ex p Stiff, 18 Ala 464; Ex p Croom, 19 Ala 561; Ex p Chancy, 8 Ala 424; Ex p Simonton, 9 Port. (Ala) 390; Co M v Phillips, 16 Mas S 423; Co M v Carter, n Pic K (Mas S) 277; State v Buyck, 2 Bay ( S Car) 563; State v Hill, 3 Brev ( S Car) 89; Logan v State, 3 Brev ( S Car) 415; State v Abbot, R M Charlt ( Ga) 244 Two Continuance S Where the state has had two continuances of the trial, the accused is entitled to be admitted to bai L Ex p Stiff, 18 Ala 464; Ex p Croom, 19 Ala 561 But this is not his right where the accused has ob- tained a change of venue and by it set aside one of the continuance S Ex p Johnson, 18 Ala 414 Nonappearance of ProsecutoRIf the prosecutor fails to appear, the accused will be released on bai L Rex v Crowe, 4 C p 251, 19 E C L 369; Rex v Osborn, 7 C p 799, 32 E C L 741; People v Jefferds, 5 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 518; Ex p Croom, igAla 561 3 Ex p Larkin, n Nev 90; Ex p Stanley, 4 Nev 113; Reg v Andrews, 2 d L 10; Co M v Carter, u Pic K (Mas S) 277; U S v Jones, 3 Wash (U S; 224 Fault or Consent of Accuse d Such delay is not ground of admission to bail where it is caused by the fault, acts, or collusion of the accused or his friends, or is consented to by the accuse d 1 Eepeal of La W Where the trial is indefinitely postponed by some event, such as the repeal of the law giving jurisdiction to try the offense or the law creating the offense, bail will be allowe d 2 e SICKNESS OR EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS sicknes S The sickness of the accused, caused or aggravated by confinement, and so serious as to endanger life or cause permanent injury to health, has been held sufficient reason, on the ground of humanity, for admitting him to bai L 3 Extradition Proceeding S During the hearing in extradition pro- ceedings the accused is not, in general, entitled to be baile d Pro- visions of the state constitutions allowing bail are construed in subordination to those of the United States Constitution providing for extraditio N 4 Uncertainty as to Cri Me Where the offense charged is one which will not be bailable if the party injured dies within a certain time, trial will be de- layed until the probability of such death can be determined, and such delay does not entitle the accused to bai L Reg v Bowen, 9 C p 509, 38 E C L 199; Ex p Andrews, 19 Ala 582; Co M v Trask, 15 Mas S 277; Dunlap v Bartlett, 10 Gray (Mas S) 282 No Indictment. The failure of the grand jury to render an indictment against the accused does not of itself entitle him to be bailed as of right, as an indictment may be subsequently foun d Fitch v State, 2 Nott M ( S Car) 558 Indictment Quashe d Where an in- dictment for murder is quashed, the accused is not entitled to bail on the ground of delay in his trial caused thereby, if the state does not in- terpose any obstacle to a speedy tria L State -v Villere, 41 La An N 572 Jury Disagree d The delay of a trial caused by the disagreement of the jury is not in itself considered sufficient reason to admit the accused to trial; it is not the fault of the prosecution, but the misfortune of both partie S State v Spergen, i McCord ( S Car) 563; Glover's Case, 109 Mas S 340 1 Rex v Kirk, 12 Mo d 304; Rex v Parish, 7 C p 782, 32 E C L 735; Ex p Campbell, 20 Ala 89; Co M v Carter, n Pic K (Mas S) 277; Co M v Superintendent of Prisons, 4 BrewSt (Pa) 320; Ex p Walto N 2 Whart.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Clawson v U S, 113 Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:28:18 +0000
(Pa) 501 Refusal to A Ct Where the judge be- fore whom a person accused of a bail- able offense is brought refuses to take any action either as to bail or trial, on the ground that he is disqualified to act in the matter, and on habeas corpus brought the court determines that said judge is disqualified, the accused will be admitted to bail to appear before a criminal court of recor d Ex p Har- ris, 26 Fla 77 3 LordAylesbury'sCase, iSal K 103; Harvey's Case, 10 Mo d 334; Kirk's Case, 5 Mo d 454; Rex v Wyndham, i Str A 2; Archer's Case, 6 Gratt ( Va) 705; Co M v Semmes, n Leigh ( Va) 696; People v Cole, 6 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 695; Ex p Pattison, 56 Mis S 161; U S v Jones, 3 WashP (U S) 224; Lester v State, 33 Ga 192 4 In re CarrieR57 Fed Rep 578; Ex p Hobbs, 32 Tex Gri M Rep 312; En p Erwin, 7 Tex App 288 In New York bail in extradition cases is allowe d N Y Code Cri M Pro, 831 Ees Adjudicat A Where one accused of an offense has been duly admitted to bail by a court or magistrate au- thorized to do so, his right to be bailed is res adjudicata, and he cannot after- wards be denied that right. Augus- tine v State (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 23 S W Rep 689 After SurrendeRIf the accused has been once bailed and then surren- dered by his bail, he may be again bailed with new suretie S Kellogg v State, 43 Mis S 57 During Tria L Where a person out / ON APPEAL FROM CONVICTIO N The conviction of the accused did not at common law deprive the court of power to admit him to bail, and such power is frequently exercise d 1 This power is exercised cautiously, and bail is usually allowed in cases of minor offenses and denied in cases of felony, or of infamous or capital offense S 2 After conviction no constitutional right to bail on bail, given after the reversal of his conviction of murder, was, during his second trial, ordered into custody by the trial justice, the appellate court refused to issue a writ of mandamus to compel his admission to bail during the second tria L Hull v Reilly, 87 Mich 497 Accomplic e Where an application for the pardon of an accomplice who had turned state's evidence was pend- ing, he was admitted to bail until its determinatio N Co M v Knapp, 10 Pic K (Mas S) 477 1 Davis -v State, 6 How (Mis S) 399; Ex p Voll, 41Cal29; State v Hill, 3 Brev ( S Car) 89; State v Satterwhite, 20 S Car 536; Co M v Lowry, 14 Le g Int (Pa) 332; Mc- Neill's Case, i Ca I ( N Y) 72; State v Levy, 24 Min N 362; Co M v Field, II Allen (Mas S) 488; Rex v Waddington, I East 143; In re Barronet, I E L B L I, 72 E C L I In Ohio it is held that the statute does not authorize the court to let to bail on the allowance of a writ of error after convictio N State v Clark, 15 Ohio 2 California Ex p Smith, 89Cal79; Ex p Brown, 68Cal176; People v Perdue, 48Cal552 Florida Miller S State, 15 Fla 575 Georgia Corbett v State, 24 Ga Illinoi S Bennett v People, 94 111 Indiana Lumm z/ State, 3 Ind 293 Louisiana State v Vion, 12 La An N 688; State v Anselm, 43 La An N 195; Ex p Longworth, 7 La An N 247; Governor v Fay, 8 La An N 490 Minnesota State v Levy, 24 Min N 362 Mississipp I Ex p Dyson, 25 Mis S 357; Davis v State, 6 How (Mis S) New York People v Croswell, I Ca I ( N Y) 149; Matter of Goodhue, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Y)427; People v Folmsbee, 60 Barb ( N Y) 480; People v Bowe, 58 How Pr ( N Y Supreme North Carolina State v Ward, 2 Hawks (N Car) 443; State v Daniel, 8 Ire d (N Car) 21; State v Ruther- ford, i Hawks (N Car) 457 South Carolina State v Satter- white, 20 S Car 536; State v Connor, 2 Bay ( S Car) 34; State v Frink, i Bay ( S Car) 168 Texa S Warnock v State, 6 Tex App 450 Englan d Reg v Harris, 4 Cox C C 21 ; Rex v Keat, 12 Mo d 102; Re X v Reader, I Str A 531; Armstrong v Lisle, i Sal K 60; Dugdale v Reg, 2 E L B L 129, 75 E C L 129; Rex v Saltash, 2 Shower 93 Pending Certiorar I Where defend- ant has lost his appeal, but is granted a writ of certiorari in lieu thereof, the granting of the writ has the effect of an appeal as to a stay of execution, and if the offense be bailable, he is entitled to bai L State v Walters, 97 N Car 489 In Connecticut Where a person con- victed escaped and was subsequently arrested, charged with the subsequent commission of a similar offense, bail on the later charge was refuse d State v Burrows, Kirby (Con N) In California The rule seems to be to refuse bail after conviction unless some unusual circumstances warrant- ing it are show N Ex p Marks, 4gCa L 680; People v Marshall, 59Cal386; Ex p Smallman, 54Cal35; Ex p Voll, 41Cal29 In Iowa Under Laws 1878, C 103, which providesthat "nodefendantcon- victed of murder shall be admitted to bail, "and which is regarded as repealing all prior inconsistent legislation, one convicted of murder in the second de- gree is not entitled to be admitted to bail pending an appeal from a judg- ment of convictio N Baldwin -v West- enhaver, 75 Iowa 547 In Territorie S Where the laws of a territory allow appeals in all case's, and a person convicted of crime has appealed, he should be admitted to bail pending appeal, in the absence of any provision in the laws of the Unit- exists, for the conviction establishes that proof of guilt is evident or the presumption thereof great ; and the granting of bail rests in the sound discretion of the court, as at common la W 1 The application for bail pending appeal after conviction should in the first instance be made to the trial judg e 2 Where bail pending ed States on the subje Ct Ex p Murphy, I Ok La 288 Misdemeanor or Felon Y A person convicted of an offense which, in the discretion of the court, may be pun- ished as a felony or misdemeanor, may be admitted to bail pending appea L Ex p Hoge, 48 Ca L3 1 Yates v People, 6 John S ( N Y) 335; People -v Restell, 3 How Pr ( N Y Supreme Ct) 251; People v Loh- man, 2 Barb ( N Y) 450; People v Bowe, 58 How Pr ( N Y Su- preme Ct) 393; Ex p Dyson, 25 Mis S 359; Ex p Wray, 30 Mis S 673; Ex p Voll, 41Cal29; Ex p Marks, 49Cal680; Ex p Hoge, 48Cal3; People v Perdue, 48Cal552; Hamp- ton v State, 42 Ohio St 401; Ex p Schwartz, 2 Tex App 80; Ex p Ezell, 40 Te^ X 451; State v McFail, 35 S CaR595; State v Ward, 2 Hawks ( N Car) 443 Where the laws of a territory pro- vided that a person convicted of crime could appeal therefrom and obtain a stay of execution upon a judge's cer- tificate that there was, in his opinion, probable cause for the appeal, and also that where the sentence was only for the payment of a fine, the accused could be admitted to bail, as of right, but it was a matter of discretion in other cases held, that where the sen- tence imposed was the payment of a fine and imprisonment also, admission to bail was matter of discretion, and not of right. Clawson v U S, 113 U S 143- Doubts as to Quilt.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where the stat- ute provided Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:13:01 +0000
A person con- victed may be admitted to bail, but at that stage of the proceedings it is said the legal doubts concerning his guilt ought to be considered so well settled that the application should be consid- ered with great caution; for bail is founded on the doubt as to the pris- oner's guilt, and at each stage of the proceedings the grounds on which he can be let to bail diminish as the evi- dence of his guilt increase S After conviction his claims are diminished; but even at that stage he may be bailed, if it appears the conviction was unjust or there is serious doubt as to his guilt. People v Lohman, 2 Barb ( N Y) 450 See also People v Folmsbee, 60 Barb ( N Y) 480; Peo- ple v Goodwin, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Merits Examine d Upon habeas cor- pus for the purpose of procuring the al- lowance of bail for one convicted of a felony, the court will examine into the merits of the application, notwith- standing an inflexible rule of the trial court not to admit to bail in such case S Ex p Smith, 89Cal79 Financial Injur Y On appeal from a conviction of manslaughter, where the accused had been sentenced to im- prisonment held, that proof that his crops needed his attention, his wife was delicate, and he would be ruined financially if imprisoned, did not war- rant his release on bail pending such appea L Hill v State, 64 Mis S 431 Apparent Error on Recor d Where an application was pending to set aside a conviction for error apparent on its face, the accused, who was in prison, was admitted to bai L Ex p Lord, 4 d L 405, 16 L J M C 15 On SurrendeRWhere the accused is surrendered by his bail, pending ap- peal, he has a right to give new bail, and should be given a chance to do So In re Bauer, 112 Mo 231 Neglect in Securing Bai L Where an order had been made admitting a per- son convicted to bail pending his ap- peal therefrom, but he neglected to secure bail for four months thereafter held, the accused being in confine- ment, and the appellate court in ses- sion, that his bail should be refused until an application had been made to advance the case on the docket of the appellate court, for the reason that the public interest demanded a speedy dis- position of the cas e U S v Sim- mons, 47 Fed Rep 723 2 People v Perdue, 48Cal552; People v January, 70Cal34 See also In re Montague, 70 Mich 157 To Appellate Court. Where the stat- ute provided that a writ of certiorari to the District Court, to review con- appeal is granted, it has been held that the accused is entitled to his liberty, although no order has been made staying the execu- tion of his sentenc e 1 4 Examining the Evidence Controlling Consideration S In determin- ing whether or not to admit a person accused to bail, the consid- erations which bear most pertinently on the question and guide in coming to a decision are, the probability of the accused ap- pearing for trial (that being the object of bail), 2 and the existence of doubt as to his guilt.

Autor of the post: Undefined

If, on the evi- dence Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:02:34 +0000
3 To determine these questions it is proper to consider the nature of the crime charged and its punish- ment, the strength of the evidence against the accused, his char- acter, means, and standing, and his opportunities for escap e 4 Before indictment. Where the application for bail is" made before indictment the presumption of innocence obtains, and the evidence taken before the committing magistrate may be examined, and any new evidence may be heard, and upon all the evidence thus produced bail may be granted or refuse d 5 tempt proceedings, could only be granted by the Supreme Court held, that the District Court had no power to admit to bail, pending such areview, a person imprisoned for the nonpay- ment of a fine imposed in contempt proceeding S Bail could only be al- lowed by the court which had power to issue the writ of certiorar I State v Buchanan County DiSt Ct, 84 Iowa 167 2 People v Dixon, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y)6si; People v Lohman, 2 Barb ( N Y) 450; Ex p Taylor, 5 Co W ( N Y) 39; Ex p Bryant, 34 Ala 270; Co M v Keeper of Prison, 2 Ash M (Pa) 227; Co M v Lemley, 2 Pitts b (Pa) 362; In re Perry, 19 Wi S 676; Green v Co M, n Leigh ( Va) 709; Summerfield v Co M, 2 Ro b ( Va) 767 3 Ex p Taylor, 5 Co W ( N Y) 39; State v Summons, 19 Ohio 139; State v Hill, 3 Brev ( S Car) 89; Ex p Rothschild, 2 Tex App 560; Rex v Walker, i Leach C C 115; Barney's Case, 5 Mo d 323; Rex v Higgins, 4 U C, O S 83; In re Barronet, I E L B L i, 72 E C L I Guilt Indifferent. If, on the evi- dence presented, it stands indifferent whether the accused is guilty or inno- cent, he ought to be baile d Ex p Taylor, 5 Co W ( N Y) 39; People v Hyler, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 570; Rex v Dalton, 2 Str A 911 The right to bail in a criminal case is founded on the doubt which may ex- ist as to the prisoner's guilt, and not on the favor of the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

2 Proof Evident Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:48:22 +0000
If his guilt is past dispute he ought not to be bailed; but even after conviction and sentence, where it appears that his conviction was unjust or there is seri- ous doubt as to his guilt^his application for bail should be grante d People v Lohman, 2 Barb ( N Y) 450 But the power to admit to bail after conviction should be exercised with great cautio N Davis v State, 6 How (Mis S) 399 4 In re Robinson, 23 L J QB 286; Reg v Badger, 4 QB 468, 45 E C L 468; Rex v Lord Baltimore, 4 BurR2179; Rex v Higgins, 4 U C, O S 83; Rex v Kirk, 12 Mo d 304; People v Van Home, 8 Barb ( N Y) 158; Peo- ple v Dixon, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 651; People v Goodwin, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Y) 447; In re Alexander, 59 Mo 598; People v Cunningham, 3 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 520; State v Rockafellow, 6 N J L 332; State v Burrows, Kirby (Con N) 259; People v Smith, iCal9 Attempts to Escap e In determining whether or not to admit to bail, the court may consider evidence tending to show that the accused has escaped from confinement or endeavored to do so, or that he has not so endeavored to do when he has had opportunit Y State v Rockafellow, 6 N J L 332 ; In re Alexander, 50 Mo 598; State v Burrows, Kirby (Con N) 259 5 Alabama Ex p Mahone, 30- Ala 49 After Indictment. Where the application is after indictment, guilt is presumed, and the evidence on which the indictment was found is not usually open for consideration, and only extraneous facts, such as evidence bearing on the grade of the offense or the amount of bail, can be show N 1 In a few of the states the whole matter may be re-examined as if no indictment had been found, although the secrecy of the evidence before the grand jury is pre- serve d 2 California People v Smith, ICal Illinoi S In re Mclntyr eio 111 422 Indiana State v Best, 7 Blackf (Ind) 611; Kiser v Woods, 60 Ind 538; Lumm v State, 3 Ind 293 Kansa S In re Snyder, 17 Ka N 542 Nebraska In re Carleton, n Neb Nevad A Ex p Ricord, n Nev 288 New York People v Beigler, 3 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 316; People v Martin, i P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 187; People v Tompkins, I P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 224; Matter of Heyward, i Sandf ( N Y) 701 Orego N Fleming v Bills, 3 Oregon 286 Pennsylvania Co M v Crawford, 8 Phi La (Pa) 490; Co M v Keeper of Prison, 2 Ash M (Pa) 227; Co M v Lemley, 2 Pitts b (Pa) 362 South Carolina State v Everett, Dudley ( S Car) 296; State v Hill, 3 Brev ( S Car) 89 VirginiaCo M v Rutherford, 5 Ran d ( Va) 646; Co M v Semmes, n Leigh ( Va)6g6 United State S In re Martin, 5 Blatchf (U S) 303 Englan d Rex v Horner, i Leach C C 270; In re Barronet, I E L B L i, 72 E C L i; Lord Mohun's Case, i Sal K 104 1 Alabama Ex p Vaughan, 44 Ala 417 Arkansa S Ex p White, 9 Ark 222 California People v Tinder, 19 Ca L 539; Ex p Dunca N 53Cal410 Florida Finch v State, 15 Fla 634 Illinoi S Lynch v People, 38 111 Indiana Ex p Heffren, 27 Ind 87; Ex p Jones, 55 Ind 176; Lumm v State, 3 Ind 293 Iowa Hight v U S, MorR(Iowa) 407 Louisiana State v Merrick, 10 La An N 424; State v Brewster, 35 La An N 605 New York People v Goodwin, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Y) 434; People v Dixon, 4 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 654; People v Hyler, 2 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 570; People v Van Home, 8 Barb ( N Y) 158; People v Rulloff, 5 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 77; People v Cole, 6 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 695 Texa S Ex p Randon, 12 Tex App 145 United State S U S v Jones, 3 Wash (U S)224 Englan d Reg v Andrews, 2 d L 10; Lord Mohun's Case, i Sal K 104 On habeas corpus to obtain bail for one accused of murder, evidence to prove innocence is not admissible if an indictment has been found; and if no indictment has been found, the matter is to be considered on the proofs on which the accused was committe d One indicted for murder cannot se- cure his absolute discharge on habeas corpus, however clearly he proves his innocence, but must be tried by jury; the most he can obtain by it is to be admitted to bai L People v McLeod, i Hill ( N Y)377 2 Ex p Banks, 28 Ala 29; People U Tinder, 19Cal539; Moore v State, 36 Mis S 137; State v Herndon, 107 N CaR934 See also Ex p Dusenberry, 97 Mo 504; In re Alexander, 59 Mo 598; Ex p Kittrel, 20 Ark 499 In New York On an application for bail the evidence taken before the grand jury may be examine d N Y Code Cri M Pro, 250; People v Van Home, 8 Barb ( N Y) 158; People v Baker, 10 How Pr ( N Y) 567 But the court cannot, it seems, look beyond the minutes of the grand jur Y People v Shattuck, 6 Abb N Ca S ( N Y SupeRCt) 33 Nevad A On application, under ha- beas corpus, for bail for one accused of murder, the whole question can be re-examined, and the evidence of wit- nesses who testified before the grand jury, and other evidence, be given; but Burden of Proof The burden of proof rests on the accused, 1 but he is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. 2 Proof Evident.

Autor of the post: Undefined

People v Cole, 6 P Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:36:12 +0000
In capital offenses, where the guilt of the accused is not evident he will be admitted to bai L 3 Such guilt is not evident where, on the whole evidence, a reasonable doubt thereof exist S 4 Where the evidence is conflicting and proof of guilt not to entitle him to be bailed the accused must show clearly his right thereto by evidence in which there is no material confli Ct In re Finten, 20 Nev 141 South Carolina On application for bail after indictment the evidence on which the indictment was found may be considered and shown to be false or maliciou S State v Hill, 3 Brev ( S Car) 89 1 Ex p Jones, 31 Tex Cri M Rep 422; Ex p Randon, 12 Tex App T45; In re Scott, 38 Neb 502; Ex p Vaughan, 44 Ala 417; Ex p Mc- Glawn, 75 Ala 38; Ex p Rhear, 77 Ala 94; People v Tinder, 19Cal539; Ex p Strange, 59Cal416; Hoi- ley v State, 15 Fla 688; Hight v U S, MorR(Iowa) 410; Lynch v People, 38 111 494; Ex p Heffren, 27 Ind 87; Ex p Jones, 55 Ind 176; Ex P Kendall, 100 Ind 599; Street v State, 43 Miss, i; Ex p Bridewell, 57 Mis S 39; Ex p Scoggin, 6 Tex App 546; Springer's Case, i Utah 214 The burden is not shifted by the fact that the accused is indicted severally, instead of jointly, with others accused of the same offens e Ex p, Johnson, 30 Tex App 279 2 Ex p Bird, 24 Ark 275; Ex p Hamilton, 65 Mis S 157; Ex p Bride- well, 57 Mis S 39; Ex p Wray, 30 Mis S 673; People v Lohman, 2 Barb ( N Y) 4 50 Bail should be granted if the evidence fails to show ground for refusing it, unless the prosecution produces fur- ther proof Ex p Bramer, 37 Tex i; Ex p Hammock, 78 Ala 414 The holding of the accused to trial by a magistrate does not determine him to be guilty, but only that there is probable cause that he should be trie d State v Roth, 17 Iowa 336; State v Hartwell, 35 Me 129; Yaner v People, 34 Mich 286 3 Ex p Thompson (Tex App, 1890), 15 S W Rep 912; Ex PP^oitz, 29 Tex App 128; Ex p Hope, 29 Tex App 189; Ex p Moore (Tex App, 1891), 16 S W Rep 764; Ex p Kunde, 22 Tex App 418; Ex p O'Conner, 22 Tex App 660; Ex p McDowell, 23 Tex App 679; In re Losasso, 15 Colo163; In re Secrest (Ka N, 1887), 14 Pa C Rep 144 See also I I 3, A B, supr A 4 Ex p Bridewell, 57 Mis S 39; Ex p Wray, 30 Mis S 673; Ex p Cold- iron, 15 Tex App 464; Ex p Smith, 23 Tex App 100; Ex p McAnally, 53 Ala 495 See also Ex p Sutherlin, 56 Ind 595; Ex p Kendall, 100 Ind 599; Ex p Walton, 79 Ind 600; Ex p Bare, 76 Ind 378; Ex p Hock, 68 Ind 206; In re Robertson (Tex App, 1889), 12 S W Rep 1136; Ex p Smith, 26 Tex App 134 Where Verdict of Guilty not Eeverse d The test to determine whether proof of guilt is evident is whether a ver- dict of guilty on the evidence would be sustained or not; and it is only in cases where such a verdict would be reversed that it can be said that proof of guilt is not evident. Co M v Keeper of Prison, 2 Ash M (Pa) 227; Ex p Foster, 5 Tex App 625; Ex p Brown, 65 Ala 446; Ex p Bryant, 34 Ala 270; Ex p Nettles, 58 Ala 268; Ex p Allen, 55 Ala 258; Ex p Rich- ardson, 96 Ala no; Ex p Sloane, 95 Ala 22; In re Troia, 64Cal152; Thrasher v State, 26 Fla 526; State v Summons, 19 Ohio 139 See also Ex p Claunch, 71 Mo 233; In re Bell, 113 Mo 568; Street v State, 43 Mis S I But in Mississippi it has been held that the court may admit to bail even in cases where the jury might, or per- haps on the same evidence ought to, render a verdict of guilty of murdeREx p Bridewell, 57 Mis S 39; Moore v State, 36 Mis S 137; Beall v State, 39 Mis S 715 Jury Disagree d The fact that on a trial the jury have disagreed does not of itself entitle the accused to be bailed, but it bears on the question of probable guilt, and tends to show that proof of guilt is not evident. People v Cole, 6 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 695; People v Goodwin, i Whee L CRCa S ( N Y) 445; People v Perry, 8 Abb Pr, N S ( N Y Supreme Ct) 27; clear bail will be allowe d 1 Where the evidence shows that the killing was deliberate or malicious, bail will be refuse d 2 Where Cole's Case, 4 Abb Pr, N S ( N Y Supreme Ct) 280; State v Summons, 19 Ohio 139; In re Alexander, 59 Mo 599; Ex p Goans, 99 Mo 193; Ex p England, 23 Tex App 90; Webb v State, 4 Tex App 167; People v Tinder, 19Cal539; Ex p McLaugh- lin, 41Cal211 ; Beall v State, 39 Mis S 715; Ex p Pattison, 56 Mis S 161 Similar Offens e Where it is shown that the accused has been acquitted on a trial for an offense similar to the one for which he is indicted, and that both charges were based on the same substantial state of facts, he should be admitted to bai L Green v Co M, n Leig H ( Va) 709 1 In re Puryear (Tex App, 1889), ii S W Rep 32; Ex p Jones, 26 Tex App 597; Ex p Duncan, 27 Tex App 485; Ex p Gallaher, 25 Tex App 455; Ex p Smith, 26 Tex App 134 Con- tra, Ex p Beacom, 12 Tex App 318 Conflict as to State of MInd Where, on application to bail of one accused of murder, the evidence is conflicting as to what was the state of mind of the accused at the time the act was com- mitted, it cannot be said that proof of guilt is evident, and the accused is entitled to be baile d Ex p Miller, 41 Tex 213 Evidence Contradictor Y Where the evidence of the accused as to how the killing occurred differs from state- ments made by him immediately after the act, and it is apparent the wounds could not have been inflicted in the manner stated by him, bail should be denie d Ex p Pace (Tex, 1892), 20 S W Rep 922 Evidence Fals e On application for bail on a charge of murder, if the evidence against the accused is shown to be false,, bail should be grante d Ex p Floyd, 60 Mis S 913; In re Troia, 64Cal152 Identity of Accuse d Where the evi- dence does not clearly show that the person accused of murder is the per- son guilty of it, bail should be allowe d Ex p Jasef (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep 421; Ex p Moore (Tex App, 1891), 16 S W Rep 764 But see McKinney v State (Tex Crim: App, 1892), 20 S W Rep 363 Evidence Circumstantia L Where the evidence against one accused of a capital offense is entirely circum- stantial, he should be admitted to bail unless the evidence excludes, to a moral certainty, every reasonable hy- pothesis except that of his guilt.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where it appears the killing Post Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:22:25 +0000
Ex P Acree, 63 Ala 234 Manslaughter Instead of MurdeRWhere the accused is indicted for murder, but the evidence on applica- tion for bail shows the offense to be manslaughter, he should be baile d Brown v State, 18 Tex App 326; Ex p Matlock, 18 Tex App 227 Charge and Proof DiffeRIf the facts shown do not sustain the charge of murder contained in the warrant on which the accused was arrested, he should be admitted to bai L People v Porter, 8 Barb ( N Y) 168, note; People v Westchester County, I P Ark CR Rep ( N Y)65g; People v Beig- ler, 3 P Ark CR Rep ( N Y) 316; People v Baker, 10 How Pr ( N Y) 567; People v Collins, 20 How Pr ( N Y)II I 2 Price v State (Tex Cri M App, 1894), 26 S W Rep 624; Cash v Stat e (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 24 S W Rep" 408; McKinney v State (Tex, 1892), 20 S W Rep 363; Randle v State, (Tex Cri M App, 1893), 22 S W Rep 49; Ex p Johnson, 30 Tex App 279; Ex p Curtis, 92Cal188; In re Bell, 113 Mo 568; Schmidt v Simmons, 137 Ind 93 See Ex p Wolff, 57 Ca L 94; Ex p Hamilton, 65 Mis S 147 Drunkennes S Where the statutes provide that drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime, the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the killing does not raise any doubt as to his intent, so as to entitle him to be admitted to bai L Ex p Evers, 29 Tex App 539 But see Ex p Bates, 29 Tex App 138 Conspirac Y Where the evidence showed that the accused . conspired with others to do an unlawful act, which from its nature rendered a homicide probable, and which actually resulted in a homicide, bail will be re- fused, although the accused was not present when the homicide was com- mitte d Ex p Bonner (Ala-, 1894), 14 So Rep 648 See also Co M v O'Don- nell, 12 Pa Co Ct Rep 142 Kiot. Where it appears the killing was done by a body of men engaged it appears that the killing may have been done in self-defense, bail is allowe d 1 Sicknes S To warrant the admission of the accused to bail on ac- count of illness, the evidence should clearly show that death or permanent ill-health will result from a continuance of the confine- ment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

mail to: pirton@mail.ru