Bail and In re Humphrey

Bail and In re Humphrey

RC Phillips, DDA (Ret.)
October, 2021

In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006  (review granted May 23, 2018, S247278)

This P&A will summarize the Court of Appeal opinion, issued on January 25, 2018, which impacts bail decisions in California.  On February 20, the California Attorney General announced he will not seek review of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The Court of Appeal in Humphrey summarizes its principles regarding money bail:

       “A defendant may be not be imprisoned solely due to poverty.”

       “Rigorous procedural safeguards are necessary to assure the accuracy of the determination that a defendant is dangerous, and detention is necessary in the absence of less restrictive alternatives to protect the public.”

I.  The Concern of the Court of Appeal

     The Court of Appeal quotes from the 2017 State of the Judiciary Address in which the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court told the Legislature:  “I think it’s time for us to really ask the question whether or not bail effectively serves its purpose, or does it in fact penalize the poor.”  The Court of Appeal also refers to the declaration in Senate Bill No. 10, the California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017, which states that modernization of the pretrial system is urgently needed in California because many individuals, who have not been convicted of a crime, are held in county jails and are awaiting trial “because they cannot afford to post money bail or pay a commercial bail bond company.”  The Court of Appeal also quotes from a speech given in 1979 by (then) Governor Jerry Brown, in which he described the California bail system as a “tax on ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.