TITLE 18, SECTION 3041, UNITED STATES CODE § 3041. Power of courts and magistrates. For any offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any United States commissioner, or by any chancellor, judge of a supreme or superior court, chief or first judge of common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any state where the offender may be found, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned, [or bailed] or released as provided in chapter 207 of this title, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense. TITLE 18, SECTION 3141, UNITED STATES CODE § 3141. Power of courts and magistrates. Bail may be taken by any court, judge, or magistrate authorized to arrest and commit offenders, [but in capital cases bail may be taken only by a court of the United States having original or appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases or by a justice or judge thereof] but only a court of the United States having original jurisdiction in criminal cases, or a justice or judge thereof, may admit to bail or otherwise release a person charged with an offense punishable by death. TITLE 18, SECTION 3142, UNITED STATES CODE § 3142. Surrender by bail. Any party charged with a criminal offense [and admitted to bail] who is released on the execution of an appearance bail bond with one or more sureties, may, in vacation, be arrested by his surety, and delivered to the marshal or his deputy, and brought before any judge or other officer having power to commit for such offense; and at the request of such surety, the judge or other officer shall recommit the party so arrested to the custody of the marshal, and indorse on the recognizance, or certified copy thereof, the discharge and exoneretur of such surety; and the person so committed shall be held in custody until discharged by due course of law. TITLE 18, SECTION 3143, UNITED STATES CODE §3143. Additional bail. When proof is made to any judge of the United States, or other magistrate authorized to commit on criminal charges, that a person previously [admitted to bail] released on the execution of an appearance bail bond with one or more sureties on any such charge is about to abscond, and that his bail is insufficient, the judge or magistrate shall require such person to give better security, or, for default thereof, cause him to be committed; and an order for his arrest may be indorsed on the former commitment, or a new warrant therefor may be issued, by such judge or magistrate, setting forth the cause thereof. [89th Cong., 2d sess., House of Representatives, Report No. 1658] DISTRICT June 24, 1966.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. McMillan, from the Committee on District of Columbia, submitted the following report to accompany H.R. 15860 The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 15860) to establish the District of Columbia Bail Agency, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows: Page 7, line 11, after the date "1966" insert the following: "(Public Law 89– 465)". PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of the bill is to alleviate some of the injustices and inequities existing in the present financial bail system in the District of Columbia, by creating an independent fact-gathering-and-reporting Bail Agency to secure data and provide to any judicial officer in the District of Columbia (as defined in the bill) reports containing verified information concerning any individual with respect to whom a bail determination is to be made. In addition, the fact-finding Bail Agency will also make its services available upon request to the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and to any Justice of the Supreme Court, whenever bail pending appeal becomes an issue. H.R. 15860 has as its basic purpose the establishment of a system whereby worthy defendants in criminal cases, as well as material witnesses in any criminal proceeding, may have an orderly procedure available to them and to the courts for the determination of the preliminary question of bailability, amount of bail, and other relevant factors which are daily passed upon by the judges in the District of Columbia. It is important to emphasize the clear line which is drawn in the bill between the duty of the Bail Agency and the duty of the court. The Bail Agency, as a part of its prearraignment investigation, will interview defendants, verify facts, and submit reports with or without recommendations to the judicial officers. But, the bail decision remains the exclusive province of the judiciary, who may accept or reject the report and recommendations; only the judicial officer may determine the conditions of release to be imposed on the defendant. As drafted and as reported by your Committee, this proposed legislation is designed to implement the Bail Reform Act of 1966, which was passed by the House on June 7, 1966, and signed by the President on June 22, 1966 (P.L. 89-465). BACKGROUND Many bail reforms have been proposed throughout the United States, seeking to foster the practice of the release on personal recognizance of an accused person where his ties to the community reasonably assure his presence for trial. According to information furnished to your Committee, more than 50 experimental bail projects are in operation. Among such states where such projects are performing are the following: In 1962, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, appointed a Committee on Bail Projects which made a study of the bail system in the District of Columbia. That Committee, working in conjunction with the District of Columbia Bar Association, Junior Bar Section, reported that its study showed that, in 1962, between 30% and 40% of the District of Columbia jail population was composed of persons either awaiting trial or in the process of trial and sentencing, and that of those awaiting trial, 80% were eligible for release on bail. Translating this burden into financial terms, the Bar Committee further reported that the cost, in 1962, of maintaining in the District of Columbia jail, defendants who were eligible for bond prior to or upon completion of trial, was almost $500,000. In the District of Columbia during 1963, 1,640 persons, or 80% of all defendants charged with felonies, spent some time in detention between arrest and final disposition of their cases. The median time spent in jail was 75 days. This does not include any time such defendants may have spent undergoing observation at a hospital or mental institution. Many defendants who spent some time in detention were ultimately able to post bond. Prolonged detention, it was found, was not necessarily due to crowded court calendars, but often resulted from delays attendant to the making and execution of defendant's motions for continuance, severance, and the like. Among its many recommendations, the Bar Committee recommended that a pilot project, similar to the pre-trial release program conducted by the Vera Foundation in New York City, be established in the District of Columbia. THE D.C. BAIL PROJECT In May of 1963 the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit adopted this recommendation and, through its Committee on Bail Problems, proposed an experimental project designed to cover cases where the bail applicant appears to have a stable connection with the community even in the absence of the posting of security by a bondsman. In such cases, it was proposed, the relevant facts would be summarized, and such information, together with a recommendation of release on personal recognizance, would be made available to the presiding magistrate. As a result, the Ford Foundation granted funds ($65,000 for each year for 3 years) to the Georgetown University Law Center, which made possible the institution and operation of a three-year experimental program that is secheduled to terminate in September, 1966. Originally, this experiment covered only felony cases. However, in August, 1965, the coverage was extended to misdemeanor cases. Also, in 1964, the experiment's operations were expanded to include fact-investigation in cases involving bail pending appeal. HOW THE BAIL PROJECT WORKS Under this experiment, accused persons are being interviewed by staff members immediately after being brought before a committing magistrate. The arresting officers are also interviewed at this time. Thereafter, independent verification of the information is sought from the accused's relatives, friends, employers, unions, welfare officials, clergy, and the like. The accused's criminal record, if any, including Juvenile Court records, is obtained. Finally, a brief staff conference evaluates the case to determine whether a recommendation should be made that the accused be released on personal recognizance. It should be stressed here that this decision is based on the community ties of the accused, and not on the alleged facts of the offense. The latter are usually not known by the staff unless they were brought out at initial presentment. Neither the accused nor any other contact is asked matters pertaining to the facts of the alleged offense. The importance of this point is that the Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of General Sessions, in commenting upon the D.C. Bail Project, said that this experiment has produced some very good results, but voiced the reservation that it is necessary for the judges to reject the recommendations for release upon personal recognizance in some cases because the facts of the offense may make such rejection in the public interest, regardless of the personal data regarding the defendant. In other words, the Chief Judge is emphasizing what was said at the outset, namely, the judicial officer, in the final analysis, must alone exercise his discretion in determining conditions of release, or whether there shall be release of the accused. Recommendations for release upon personal recognizance are submitted to the appropriate court or to the United States Commissioner. The entire procedure is concluded in periods of time ranging from the same day on which the accused appeared initially to a few days after his initial appearance, depending upon the difficulties encountered in obtaining necessary information from both private and official sources. Upon release, each defendant is advised by a member of the staff of the penalties for failure to appear for trial. Also, certain follow-up procedures are used to assure the return of the accused for required court appearances. For example, felony defendants are asked to telephone the office weekly. This is not strictly enforced, however. This serves as a means of notifying defendants of required court appearance. Also, the released defendants and relatives and friends who have agreed to accept notification are notified in advance of required court appearances and reminded of the penalties for failure to appear. RESULTS OF D.C. BAIL PROJECT The following information was furnished your Committee by the officers of the D.C. Bail Project now in operation, as to its operations to date: Present project data indicate that as of June 3, 1966, the District of Columbia Bail Project has made a total of 2,456 recommendations for release on personal bond. The courts have followed approximately 85% of these recommendations with the result that 2,084 persons have been released on their word that they would return. Presently, over 97% of those released have appeared in court as they promised. It is interesting to note that 47 of the 59 defaulters have been returned to custody and 40 of these were rearrested in the Washington, D.C. area. A further matter of interest is the fact that 50 faced misdemeanor charges at the time of default. While the criteria utilized by the project for determining whether the defendant would return to court if released were not primarily devised for any other purpose, experience has demonstrated that the criteria are meaningful as well when related to the safety of the community. To illustrate, of the 2,084 releases, 2.5% were charged with serious subsequent offenses arising during the period of their releases; 5% were charged with less serious subsequent offenses; and 1.6% were charged with subsequent municipal code offenses. It should be noted, in this connection, that while 17% of these subsequent charges remain pending, 31% were dismissed, nolled, or resulted in acquittals. The remaining 52% resulted in the following dispositions: 6% convicted and given probationary sentences: 43% convicted and incarcerated; 2% convicted and forfeited collateral. The Acting Director of the Office of Criminal Justice, Department of Justice, testified in support of the proposed legislation, and particularly as to the experience of the pilot D.C. Bail Project stated as follows: "The Bail Project has proven to be of great value to individuals, courts and the administration of justice generally in the District of Columbia. For the first time in this jurisdiction, it has enabled a large number of persons to be released on personal bond when, without a fact-finding project, they would either have remained in jail or been made to suffer financial hardship to raise a bondsman's fee. A recent report indicated that in its first two years, nearly 75% of the Project's recommendations for release without money bail were honored by judges in felony cases, and 93% in misdemeanor cases. This means that almost 2,100 persons have been released because of information supplied by the Project. We understand that the 3% default rate in Bail Project cases in less than that in bail bond cases. We also understand that charges of serious criminal conduct during periods of pretrial release have shown a similarly low rate: Bail Project reports indicate that less than 2.5% of persons released on its recommendation have been so charged, and that a majority of the charges disposed of to date have been dismissed. "The project enables many persons to secure their liberty, retain their jobs, prepare their defense and maintain family relationships. Its cost savings to the community from eliminating unnecessary retention in the D.C. jail run to many thousands of dollars. Our court system is able to make more meaningful decisions because they can be based on information not previously available. These results clearly demonstrate the desirability of establishing the Project as a permanent independent agency in the District of Columbia." PROVISIONS OF THE BILL Section 1 names the Act. Section 2 creates the District of Columbia Bail Agency. Section 3 provides the following definitions: "Judicial officer" is defined as the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, and the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia (but only with respect to proceedings under Section 11-1566 of the D.C. Code) or any justice or judge of such courts or a United States Commissioner. "Bail determination" means any order by a judicial officer respecting the terms and conditions of release (including any order setting the amount of bail bond or any other kind of security given to assure appearance in court) of (A) any person arrested in the District of Columbia, or (B) any material witness in any criminal proceeding in any of the courts referred to above, for trial or sentencing or pending appeal. Section 4 provides that the Bail Agency established by the bill is required, "except when impracticable", to interview persons detained pursuant to law or charged with offenses in the District of Columbia, who are to appear before a U.S. Commissioner or whose cases arose in or are before any court specified in the bill. The Agency is to independently verify information obtained from such interview, secure the person's prior criminal record from the Metropolitan Police Department, and prepare a written report of such information for submission to the appropriate judicial officer. The Agency is authorized to present such report to the appropriate judicial officer, with or without a recommendation for release on personal recognizance, personal bond, or other nonfinancial condition, but without any other recommendation. It must also provide copies of such report to the United States Attorney, to the Corporation Counsel (if pertinent), and to counsel for the person who is the subject of the report. The report must at least include information concerning the person accused, his family, his community ties, residence, employment, and prior criminal record, if any. The information contained in the Agency's files, presented in its report, or divulged during the course of any hearing, is to be used only for the purpose of a bail determination and is to be otherwise confidential. It cannot be made subject to court process for use in any other proceeding. Section 5 provides that the Agency is to function under the authority and be responsible to a five-member executive committee consisting of the respective chief judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, and a fifth member to be selected by the four chief judges. Sections 6 and 7 provide for the appointment of a Director of the Agency, selected by the executive committee (whose compensation may not exceed that of a GS-15 Employee) and for the employment of agency personnel. Section 8 of the bill requires the submission to the Congress and to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of a report on the Agency's activities. Section 9 authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be required for the operation of the Agency, to be disbursed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Budget estimates for the Agency are to be prepared by the Director of the Agency, and are subject to the approval of the executive committee of the Agency. Section 10 states that the Bail Reform Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-465) shall apply to any person detained pursuant to law or charged with an offense in the District of Columbia. Your committee wishes to make clear it is the intent of the Congress that the provisions of the Federal Bail Reform Act, approved June 22, 1966, are fully applicable to any person detained pursuant to law or charged with an offense in the District of Columbia. Upon the recommendation and request of the Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, your Committee included that Court within the terms of H.R. 15860 (sec. 3), but only with respect to criminal non-support cases under D.C. Code 11-556. ESTIMATED COSTS OF LEGISLATION According to testimony before your Committee, the estimated annual costs of the operation of the D.C. Bail Agency, based upon the experience to date in the experimental project, will be between $95,000 and $120,000, depending upon the size of the staff ultimately required and the office space and equipment which may be needed. ESTIMATED SAVINGS FROM THE LEGISLATION A more obvious benefit of the enactment of this legislation will be to remedy in part one of the many staggering problems confronting the community under the present financial bail system, viz., the tremendous burden placed on the District of Columbia Jail by the pretrial incarceration of defendants and the resulting cost of maintaining the large number of people who must languish in |