Court of Appeals Continues to Enforce Humphrey by Requiring Individualized Determinations for Pretrial Detention and Bail

Securing pretrial release for clients facing criminal charges is not just a step, but a crucial one in building a robust defense. For defense counsel, securing the client's release, if feasible, through the posting of a bail bond, is one of the immediate and top priorities in a new criminal case. 

When a client is out on bail, they are not just free, but can play a significantly more active and crucial role in assisting counsel. Their involvement in reviewing discovery, developing the case strategy and investigation, and preparing for trial is not just beneficial, but integral to the defense process.

Unfortunately, some clients in state courts are unable to afford the required cash amount for release. The Yedinak decision, which we will discuss later, reinforces our firm's unwavering commitment to justice and the rights of the accused. It reaffirms the legal system's dedication to ensuring fairness and equality.

In our firm's experience, most clients are released with bail conditions. It is only clients facing the most serious criminal allegations, and/or where there is substantial evidence of possible flight, who are subject to pretrial detention without bail.

Even in these situations, bail and release are obtainable after litigating the issue during a bail hearing. Our firm, with its extensive experience, has consistently secured bail and release for clients charged with serious offenses, including murder, sexual abuse, drug trafficking, and even international child abduction.

This success is a testament to our firm's capabilities and should instill a strong sense of confidence in our clients and legal professionals.

In re Humphrey

The 2021 California Supreme Court decision in In re Humphrey announced a "general framework" for bail determinations and pretrial detention orders, meaning the denial of the ability for a defendant to post bail at all.

Under the California constitution, only defendants charged with certain violent felonies may be denied bail completely, absent other unusual circumstances such as threats to witnesses. 

Prior to Humphrey, the common practice in most counties was to set cash bail in the amount established for a given offense in the county bail schedule. Humphrey found that a court's failure to consider the defendant's ability to pay in setting a bail amount violated the Constitution.

As relevant here, Humphrey also held that pretrial detention was authorized only after an individualized determination that no less restrictive conditions of release could adequately protect public safety or ensure the defendant's future appearance in court.

Yedinak v. Superior Court of Riverside

The recent case of Yedinak v. Superior Court of Riverside County (4th App. Dist.. No. E080685) illustrates how the Courts of Appeal continue to police the application of Humphrey in the trial courts. Yedinak was charged with two counts of felony child abuse based on allegations that he intentionally injured his six-week-old son.

Those offenses meet the constitutional exception for violent felonies, thereby allowing the trial court to at least consider outright pretrial detention.

At arraignment, it did not do so, however. Yedinak was released on cash bail and continued to make his court appearances as required for the next two years and nine months, during which time he lived in the community without incident.

Following the preliminary hearing at which probable cause for the charges was found and Yedinak was bound over to the trial court, the judge reversed course and ordered Yedinak detained without bail.

The trial court reasoned that other children, not Yedinak's, would probably not be safe in the community if he remained out on pretrial release. Yedinak filed a petition for writ of mandate.

The Court of Appeals Identified Errors

In granting mandamus against the trial court, the Court of Appeals identified four separate errors. First, the trial court failed to make a finding that the evidence against Yedinak was sufficient for a jury to find him guilty after trial, as required under the violent felony exception to the California Constitution's bail guarantee.

Second, the court's public safety rationale was quite speculative. Where the constitution requires a defendant to pose a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm, the trial judge here found that the community would probably not be safe.

The Court of Appeals noted that while the trial court paid lip service to the Humphrey decision, it only cited the severity of the charges. While that is certainly a relevant factor in making a detention decision, Humphrey also required consideration of other factors, including prior criminal history and history of compliance with court orders.

Yedinak had no prior record and had complied with bail conditions for over two years prior to being remanded.

Court of Appeals Rejected Government's Arguments

Third, the Court of Appeals rejected the government's invitation to infer that the trial court had made its findings by clear and convincing evidence as required by the constitution, as the trial court failed to state the standard it was applying.

While affirming that no "magic words" are required, a trial court must make findings with sufficient clarity and specificity to permit meaningful review into the court's evaluative process.

Finally, the trial court appeared to have considered only one less restrictive alternative to pretrial detention. It considered and rejected an order restricting Yedinak from having unsupervised contact with minors.

Humphrey requires that no less restrictive alternative be adequate to vindicate the state's compelling interests in safety and preventing flight, not that any one alternative be found inadequate. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, consideration of multiple alternatives is especially important in a case such as Yedinak's, where the defendant had been out on bail without incident for almost three years.

The Court Enforces the Humphrey Decision

In sum, Yedinak confirms that the Courts of Appeal continue to enforce the Humphrey decision against trial courts which either ignore the need for a specific, coherent, individualized public safety determination completely or, as here, gesture at the Humphrey factors and the constitution's limitations on pretrial detention while ignoring important requirements such as the clear and convincing evidence standard and the need to consider and find inadequate all less restrictive conditions.

Defense counsel will want to cite Yedinak, along with the other post-Humphrey decisions, as further support for the principle that a court may not simply short-cut the individualized risk determination demanded by the Constitution, which results in pretrial detention of their client simply based on inability to meet the financial demands of the county bail schedule. 

Understanding the implications of the Yedinak case for future bail decisions is crucial for defense counsel in building a robust defense for their clients.

The criminal defense law firm of Eisner Gorin LLP, with its extensive experience in securing bail and release for clients charged with serious offenses, including murder, sexual abuse, and drug trafficking, is located in Los Angeles, CA.

Related Content:

• Yedinak v. Superior Court of Riverside