Although historically the primary purpose of bail was to enable courts to set conditions that reasonably would assure an individual’s appearance in court, since its passage in 1984, the Bail Reform Act also has empowered federal courts faced with defendants evidencing a propensity for violence to deny or revoke bail upon a finding that they pose a danger to the community.1 Recent high-profile prosecutions of serial fraudsters like Bernard Madoff have fanned the flames of a debate regarding whether economic danger can be the basis for imposing detention to protect the financial safety of the community. Two recent district court opinions addressing misbehavior by white-collar defendants while released on bail provide useful guideposts in this debate.
In those cases, Judge Janet Hall in the District of Connecticut and Judge Kiyo Matsumoto in the Eastern District of New York revoked bail based on their determinations that the post-arrest criminal conduct of the defendants before them demonstrated a continuing economic threat to others. Whether such reasoning also might justify an initial decision to deny releaseassuming statutory prerequisites have been metis an unsettled question.
‘Danger’ Under Bail Statute
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
