342 U.S. 1 (1951)
Indictments were returned in the Southern District of California charging twelve petitioners with conspiring to violate the Smith Act.1 Upon their arrest, bail was fixed for each petitioner in the widely varying amounts of $2,500, $7,500, $75,000 and $100,000.2 On motion of petitioner Schneiderman following arrest in the Southern District of New York, his bail was reduced to $50,000 before his removal to California.3 On motion of the Government to increase bail in the case of other petitioners, and after several intermediate procedural steps, bail was fixed in the District Court for the Southern District of California in the uniform amount of $50,000 for each petitioner.4
Petitioners moved to reduce bail on the ground that bail as fixed was excessive.5 In support of their motion, petitioners submitted statements as to their financial resources, family relationships, health, prior criminal records, and other information.67 The only evidence offered by the Government was a certified record showing that four persons previously convicted under the Smith Act in the Southern District of New York had forfeited bail.8 No evidence was produced relating those four persons to the petitioners in this case.9 At a hearing on the motion, petitioners were examined by the District Judge and cross-examined by an attorney for the Government.10 Petitioners’ factual statements stand uncontroverted.11
After their motion to reduce bail was denied, petitioners filed applications for habeas corpus in the same District Court.12 Upon consideration of the record on the motion to reduce bail, the writs were denied.13 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.1415 Prior to filing their petition for certiorari in this Court, petitioners filed with Mr. Justice Douglas an application for bail and an alternative application for habeas corpus seeking interim relief.16 Both applications were referred to the Court and the matter was set down for argument on specific questions covering the issues raised by this case.17
Whether bail fixed at a uniform amount of $50,000 for each of the twelve petitioners charged with conspiring to violate the Smith Act was excessive?18
From the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to the present Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, federal law has unequivocally provided that a person arrested for a non-capital offense shall be admitted to bail.19 The right to release before trial is conditioned upon the accused giving adequate assurance that he will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty.20 Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is excessive under the Eighth Amendment.21 The fixing of bail for any individual defendant must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against him, the financial ability of the defendant to give bail and the character of the defendant.22
Yes. The petitioners are charged with offenses under the Smith Act and if found guilty face imprisonment of not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000.23 Bail for each petitioner has been fixed in a sum much higher than that usually imposed for offenses with like penalties.24 Petitioners submitted statements as to their financial resources, family relationships, health, prior criminal records, and other information. These factual statements stand uncontroverted.25
The only evidence offered by the Government was a certified record showing that four persons previously convicted under the Smith Act in the Southern District of New York had forfeited bail. No evidence was produced relating those four persons to the petitioners in this case. To infer from the fact of indictment alone a need for bail in an unusually high amount is an arbitrary act.26 Therefore the fixing of bail before trial in these cases cannot be squared with the statutory and constitutional standards for admission to bail.27
Bail has not been fixed by proper methods in this case.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Jackson agreed that the standards for fixing bail had not been correctly applied.29 He explained that each defendant stands before the bar of justice as an individual.30 A uniform blanket bail fixed chiefly by consideration of the nature of the accusation violates Rule 46(c).31
He observed that the amount appears to have been fixed not merely as reasonable assurance of presence at trial but also to keep the defendants in jail.32 This approach is contrary to the policy and philosophy of bail.33 Justice Jackson concluded that the cases should be returned for reconsideration in the traditional spirit of bail procedure.34
Whether the proper procedure for challenging bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail followed by appeal to the Court of Appeals rather than by applications for writs of habeas corpus?35
The proper procedure for challenging bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order denying such motion.36 An order denying the motion to reduce bail is appealable as a final decision of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because there is no discretion to refuse to reduce excessive bail. Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy for one held in custody in violation of the Constitution. The District Court should withhold relief in a collateral habeas corpus action where an adequate remedy available in the criminal proceeding has not been exhausted.37
Yes. Petitioners moved to reduce bail on the ground that it was excessive under the Eighth Amendment and the motion was denied.38 Petitioners did not take an appeal from the order of the District Court denying their motion for reduction of bail.39 Instead they presented their claims under the Eighth Amendment in applications for writs of habeas corpus.40
Because an adequate remedy by motion and appeal was available in the criminal proceeding, the District Court properly considered the habeas applications but should withhold relief until that remedy is exhausted.41
Petitioners' remedy is by motion to reduce bail with right of appeal to the Court of Appeals.42
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Jackson concluded that an order denying reduction of bail is to be regarded as a final decision appealable to the Court of Appeals.43 He explained that the motion to reduce bail affords a practical, simple, adequate and expeditious procedure.44 Habeas corpus should be reserved for cases in which no other procedure will present the issues to the courts.45
He noted that the relation of an order fixing bail to final judgment is analogous to an order determining the right to security in a civil proceeding or other interlocutory orders reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.46 The Appellate Court should reverse only for clear abuse of discretion or other mistake of law.47
Whether the District Court should withhold relief in a collateral habeas corpus action where an adequate remedy available in the criminal proceeding has not been exhausted?48
Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy for one held in custody in violation of the Constitution. The District Court should withhold relief in a collateral habeas corpus action where an adequate remedy available in the criminal proceeding has not been exhausted.
Yes. After their motion to reduce bail was denied, petitioners filed applications for habeas corpus in the same District Court.49 Upon consideration of the record on the motion to reduce bail, the writs were denied. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Because petitioners had an adequate remedy by motion to reduce bail and appeal that they did not pursue, the District Court should withhold relief in the collateral habeas corpus action.5051
The District Court should withhold relief in the collateral habeas corpus action.