In re Kenneth Humphrey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In re Kenneth Humphrey was a case decided by the California Supreme Court concerning whether it is a violation of due process and equal protection to imprison defendants prior to trial solely because they cannot afford to pay bail.[1]
In re Kenneth Humphrey | |
---|---|
Full case name | IN RE: KENNETH HUMPHREY, on Habeas Corpus. |
Holding | |
Undecided at Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California, held that setting money bail in an amount a defendant cannot possibly afford amounts to unconstitutional detention of a person before they have been convicted of a crime. |
On March 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court affirmed the ruling by the District Court of Appeal in severely restricting the use of "cash bail" on defendants who could not afford it.
According to the Harvard Law Review (HLR), the decision provided "a significant substantive protection for indigent persons who might otherwise be jailed" due to their inability to pay their bail. Nevertheless, the HLR notes that the "court's decision left unresolved core questions about the role of public safety in" the state bail system, potentially limiting the ruling's impact on reducing "hardships posed by bail and pretrial detention".[2]