Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / courts / U.S. Supreme Court upholds decision on bail for accused rapists

U.S. Supreme Court upholds decision on bail for accused rapists

In this Oct. 4, 2018 photo, the U.S. Supreme Court is seen at sunset in Washington. The Supreme Court is refusing a new invitation to rule on gun rights, leaving in place California restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public. The justices on Monday rejected an appeal from Sacramento residents who argued that they were unfairly denied permits to be armed in public.(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

In this Oct. 4, 2018 photo, the U.S. Supreme Court is seen at sunset in Washington.  ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to reinstate a 2002 voter-approved amendment to the Arizona Constitution which denied bail to anyone accused of rape.

Without comment, the justices let stand a year-old state Arizona Supreme Court ruling which said the seriousness of the charge, by itself, is insufficient to result in automatic denial of release pending trial. The state’s high court, in its 4-3 decision, said the only constitutional way to deny bail is for prosecutors to prove that the defendant in question poses a specific threat, and that there are no conditions of release that can be imposed that would still protect the public.

Monday’s ruling came despite arguments by Assistant Attorney General Rusty Crandell that the crime of rape is a “uniquely horrifying act” and there is a “frightening and high risk” that sex offenders will reoffend.

He also said that the law — the one he asked the nation’s high court to consider and reinstate — has procedural safeguards. That includes requiring prosecutors to prove to a judge that “the proof is evident or the presumption great” that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime.

None of that was sufficient to gather the necessary four votes among the U.S. justices to consider the arguments.

Prior to 2002, it was presumed that people charged with a crime were entitled to bail. There were only a few exceptions, like those for which the death penalty could be imposed, offenses committed while someone already was out on bail, and felonies where the person charged poses a substantial danger to others and no conditions of release could assure safety.

The 2002 voter-approved state constitutional amendment added various sex offenses to that list.

This case involves Guy Goodman who was charged in 2017 with sexually assaulting a victim in 2010.

At a pretrial hearing a police officer testified that Goodwin, a guest in the victim’s home after a night of socializing, molested her while she was sleeping. The officer also said that Goodman, when confronted with DNA evidence, confirmed the sexual assault.

A Maricopa County court commissioner said while there was evidence Goodman committed the offense prosecutors failed to show he posed a “substantial danger to other persons in the community.” At least part of that was based on the fact there was no evidence he had committed similar crimes in the seven years between the incident and his arrest or threatened the victim.

Instead, the commissioner set bail at $70,000, requiring electronic monitoring of his movements, and imposed other conditions like not possessing any weapons.

The state Court of Appeals overturned that decision, leading to the Arizona Supreme Court ruling.

Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the majority, cited prior U.S. Supreme Court ruling which concluded that pretrial detention without bail is permissible only when there is a “legitimate and compelling” purpose and that the restriction is narrowly focused. She and three other justices said that means defendants are entitled to be released pending trial when there is no showing they will be a danger to the community, despite what Arizona voters approved.

But Justice Clint Bolick, in a stinging dissent for himself and two other justices, chided his colleagues for voiding the decision by voters to keep those accused of rape locked up following their arrest.

“Sexual assault is by definition a uniquely horrific act, in which a person’s most intimate parts are violated through force, coercion or deception,” he wrote.

Bolick also pointed out what he said are safeguards in the bail-denial amendment.

He said judges can keep someone locked up only if the prosecution first shows that “the proof is evident or the presumption great” that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime. Anyway, Bolick said, being locked up pending trial is not a huge burden, saying incarceration “will only be temporary.”

Timmer, however, said that’s not the issue — or the standard.

“The question here is not whether sexual assault is a deplorable crime that endanger and dehumanizes victims,” she wrote. “It is and it does.”

The question, Timmer said, is even if there is great proof of someone’s guilt whether that person “will post an unmanageable risk of danger if released pending trial.” And she said even data cited by prosecutors about recidivism rates of convicted rapists after release from prison do not provide a basis for categorical denial of bail.

Timmer also said courts can impose restrictions on those released to protect public safety, such as requiring their movements to be monitored by global positioning system devices.

Goodman eventually pleaded guilty while the case was pending. But the legal issue remained alive based on the likelihood that the legal questions about the 2002 ballot measure would reoccur.

This isn’t the first time the court have voided a provision of Arizona laws on bail.

In 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voided a 2006 voter-approved change to the Arizona Constitution that made bail unavailable to those charged with “serious felony offenses” if they are in this country illegally and there is “evident” proof the person is guilty of the offense charged.

In their ruling, the federal appellate judges said the measure violates the U.S. Constitution. The majority in that case said the right against being deprived of liberty without due process extends to “even one whose presence in this country is unlawful.”

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to disturb that ruling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

Kori Lorick, elections, Judd, Crosby, Cochise County, certification, general election, hand counts, deadline

State elections director wants investigation of two Cochise County supervisors amid election certification drama (access required)

The state elections director wants prosecutors to investigate and "take appropriate enforcement actions'' against two Cochise County supervisors who refused to certify election results by the deadline as legally required.