impuse 2 Re S. 1357 and H.R. 10195, Bail Reform Act. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. SEPTEMBER 25, 1965. DEAR MR. CELLER: I am enclosing for your consideration comparison of the differences between S. 1357 as it passed the Senate and H.R. 10195. I think the comparison is self-explanatory. We have no objection to most of the changes incorporated in S. 1357. With respect to paragraph 10, page 4, we prefer the House version. With respect to paragraph 11, we prefer the House version, also, but the Senate Judiciary Committee made this change after considering our point of view and under the circumstances we accept the change and do not object. We do believe that a general savings clause should be added to the bill. As you know, we are very much interested in the enactment of this legislation at an early date. We are grateful for all that you have done in this important area and certainly hope that your committee can take up and consider S. 1357 during this session. Sincerely, BAREFOOT SANDERS, Assistant Deputy Attorney General. MEMORANDUM RE COMPARISON OF S. 1357, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND H.R. 10195 The significant differences between the Senate Judiciary Committee version of the Bail Reform Act of 1965 and H.R. 10195 are as follows: A. Changes necessitated by the inclusion of offenses under the District of Columbia Code which are tried in the District of Columbia court of general sessions 1. S. 1357 (p. 11, lines 8-9) contains the phrase "at his appearance before a judicial officer" in discussing the stage at which an accused shall be released under the procedures established by the act. The quoted phrase is designed to insure the retention of station house bail for misdemeanors under the District of Columbia Code tried in the District of Columbia court of general sessions by making it clear that the act does not become operative until the accused is brought before a judicial officer. Although the need to retain station house bail was pointed up by the inclusion of District of Columbia Code offenses tried in general sessions, it is also needed for felonies tried in the U.S. district court and misdemeanors under the United States Code tried in general sessions. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 2. S. 1357 (p. 14, lines 16-19) provides that the pretrial release procedures established by the act shall not be construed to prevent the disposition of cases by forfeiture of collateral security where such a disposition is authorized by court. This provision was added to accommodate the needs of the District of Columbia court of general sessions. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 3. S. 1357 (p. 14, line 25, and p. 15, lines 3 and 10), in establishing review procedures, uses the phrase "court having original jurisdiction over the offense" charged instead of the "district court", which is used in H.R. 10195. This change results from the inclusion of offenses under the D.C. Code which are tried in the court of general sessions. It recognizes that the court of general sessions, and not the U.S. district court, is the appropriate court to conduct the initial review of bail determinations relative to defendants in the general sessions court. 4. S. 1357 (p. 18, lines 3-4) defines "offense" as any criminal offense "in violation of an Act of Congress and *** triable in any court established by an Act of Congress," thus bringing all offenses tried in the District of Columbia court of general sessions within the purview of the bill. This includes cases brought in the District of Columbia branch, as well as all cases brought in the U.S. branch. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. B. General changes 1. S. 1357 (p. 11, lines 14-22 and p. 12, lines 1-17) establishes & priority for nonfinancial conditions of release, as does H.R. 10195, but goes further and establishes priorities within the two classes of release -nonfinancial and financial. In addition, it permits release on recog nizance or unsecured appearance bond to be combined with release on conditions when reasonable to assure appearance. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provisions. 2. S. 1357 (p. 12, lines 5-6) provides as a condition of release for release during the day and return to custody at night. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 3. S. 1357 (p. 12, lines 16-17) contains a "catchall" condition of release which permits the imposition of any condition reasonably necessary to assure appearance. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 4. S. 1357 (p. 13, lines 4-5 and 7-9) requires the judical officer authorizing an accused's release to issue an order stating the conditions imposed and to advise the accused that an arrest warrant will be issued for a violation of a condition of release. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 5. S. 1357 (p. 13, lines 18-21) makes the imposition of daytime release subject to review by the judicial officer imposing it. This is similar to the review afforded in both bills for detention resulting from inability to meet a condition of release. Review is provided by S. 1357 on the theory that daytime release-nighttime custody is a form of dention. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision, since it does not provide for daytime release. 6. S. 1357 (p. 13, lines 23-24 and p. 14, lines 1-2) provides that in the event the judicial officer who imposed conditions of release is not available to review such conditions, any other judicial officer in the district may conduct the review. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 7. S. 1357 (p. 14, sec. 3147(a)) does not contain a provision found in H.R. 10195 (sec. 3148(a)), which requires that when a review of an order of a judicial officer is made by a district court, it shall be made by the court for the district in which the judicial officer sits. 8. S. 1357 (p. 17, line 19), in defining the term "judicial officer," does not use the words "or court" in addition to "person," as does H.R. 10195. In addition, lines 22-24 include a judge of the District of Columbia court of general sessions in the definition of "judicial officer." This is necessary because such judges sit as committing AME 1. rewo reas Conc DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAIL AGENCY 61 magistrates for felonies to be tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 9. S. 1357 (p. 17, line 25 and p. 18, lines 1-2) contains a definition of the term "offense" which is different from that contained in H.R. 10195 in that military offenses, such as those tried by court-martial, military commission, etc., are excluded by S. 1357 from the purview of the act. 10. S. 1357 (p. 18, line 17) permits credit against sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense for which "sentence was imposed," as compared with H.R. 10195, page 8, line 3, Ewhich also gives a convicted person credit against sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense for which "he was arrested." 11. S. 1357 (p. 18, lines 17-21 and p. 19, lines 1-3) contains a provision under which credit against fine will be given for days spent in custody. H.R. 10195 contains no similar provision. 12. S. 1357 (p. 19, lines 3-8) provides that no credit against sentence or fine shall be given if the sentencing judge considers the days spent by the defendant in custody in arriving at the sentence and makes a record of such consideration. 13. S. 1357 (pp. 19-20, sec. 5) contains a number of technical amendments not contained in H.R. 10195. 14. S. 1357 does not provide for an effective date. H.R. 10195, section 5, provides that the act is to take effect 30 days after the date of its enactment. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Washington, D.C., March 21, 1966. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: AS I indicated during my testimony on S. 1357 and H.R. 10195, before Subcommittee No. 5 on March 9, I am herewith transmitting a set of our proposed amendments to S. 1357. The amendments cover four subjects: daytime release, credit against sentences, effective date, and technical changes. If the meaning or purpose of any of these is unclear, or if there is any other way in which we can be of assistance in enabling you to complete action on this important legislation, please let me know. With kind regards, Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO S. 1357 Daytime release 1. On page 4 of S. 1357, lines 5 and 6, delete condition No. (4) and reword condition No. (7) to read: "impose any other condition deemed reasonably necessary to assure appearance as required, including a condition requiring that the person return to custody after daylight hours." Renumber conditions (5), (6), and (7) to read (4), (5) and (6). 2. On page 5, reword lines 18-22, beginning with "A person" and ending with "is amended," to read: "A person who is ordered released on a condition which requires that he return to custody after daylight hours shall, upon application, be entitled to a review by the judicial officer who imposed the condition. Unless the requirement is removed and the person is thereupon released on another condition, the judicial officer shall set forth in writing the reasons for continuing the requirement.' 3. On page 6, reword lines 9-11, beginning with "condition number", to read: "a condition requiring him to return to custody after daylight hours, the provisions of subsection (d) shall apply." 4. On page 6, reword line 22 to read: "a condition requiring him to return to custody after daylight hours is continued, after”. Credit against sentence 5. On page 10, lines 14-15, delete the words "Any such person shall be given" and substitute the words "The Attorney General shall give any such person". 6. On page 10, line 16, after the word "offense", insert the words "for which he was arrested or". 7. On page 10, line 17, insert a period after the word "imposed" and delete the remainder of the section through the word "judgment" page 11, line 8. Effective date 8. On page 12, add as a new section 6 the following: "This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is enacted: Provided, That the provisions of section 4 shall be applicable only to sentences imposed on or after the effective date." Technical amendments 9. On page 9, line 19, after the word "person", insert the words "or court". 10. On page 9, line 21, insert between the words "to" and "release" the words "bail or otherwise". 11. On page 1, line 4, delete "1965" and substitute "1966". ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: This is in reply to your request of March 23, 1965, for the views of the Judicial Conference of the United States on H.R. 6271, a bill to authorize release on a personal recognizance of persons otherwise eligible for bail, to credit time spent in custody for lack of bail toward service of sentence, and to further implement the constitutional right to bail. The purpose of this legislation is to improve present bail practices and to correct certain defects therein. At its session on September 22-23, 1965, the Judicial Conference voted to approve a substantially similar bill (S. 1357) in the form in which it passed the Senate. Sincerely, WILLIAM E. FOLEY, CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, there is printed below in roman existing law in which no change is proposed by the bill as reported. Matter proposed to be stricken by the bill as reported is enclosed in black brackets. New language proposed by the bill as reported is printed in italic. CHAPTER 207, TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE [§ 3146. Jumping bail. [Whoever, having been admitted to bail for appearance before any United States commissioner or court of the United States, incurs a forfeiture of the bail and willfully fails to surrender himself within thirty days following the date of such forfeiture, shall, if the bail was given in connection with a charge of felony or pending appeal or certiorari after conviction of any offense, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; or, if the bail was given in connection with a charge of committing a misdemeanor, or for appearance as a witness, be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. [Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.] § 3146. Release in noncapital cases prior to trial. (a) Any person charged with an offense, other than an offense punishable by death, shall at his appearance before a judicial officer, be ordered released pending trial on his personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial officer, unless the officer determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. When such a determination is made, the judicial officer shall, either in lieu of or in addition to the above methods of release, impose the first of the following conditions of release which will reasonably assure the appearance of the person for trial or, if no single condition gives that assurance, any combination of the following conditions: (1) place the person in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him; (2) place restrictions on the travel, association, or place of abode of the person during the period of release; (3) require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount and the deposit in the registry of the court, in cash or other security as directed, of a sum not to exceed 10 per centum of the amount of the bond, such deposit to be returned upon the performance of the conditions of release; (4) require the execution of a bail bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or the deposit of cash in lieu thereof; or |