Examining Judicial Decision-Making in Bail Hearings in Southern California

• In Event: Pretrial Processing and the Right to Bail

Abstract

This paper examines pretrial judicial decision making, specifically the decision to impose bail. At the bail hearing, judges must decide whether defendants should be detained, released on their own recognizance, or granted bail. In California, judges make this decision largely by relying on County Bail Schedules, which are similar to sentencing guidelines and prioritize the seriousness of the offense when determining bail. Being detained pretrial, whether it is because you were denied bail or because you cannot afford the bail that was set for you, has negative implications, including the fact that defendants who are denied bail are more likely to plead guilty, and upon conviction are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration. They also face longer sentences than defendants who are released pending trial. Despite the significant impact of the bail decision, there is limited research on the decision, including on the factors judges consider in making the bail decision both on how judges make the decision. This paper presents preliminary findings from a study of bail hearings in two California counties. Relying on court observations, case files, and interviews, we find that bail is usually set without regard to the ability of the defendant to pay.

Authors

• Christine Scott-Hayward, California State University, Long Beach

• Sarah Ottone, California State University, Long Beach