Yes. The court said that keeping someone in jail with super high bail is basically the same as ordering them to be detained without bail. Our justice system says you're innocent until proven guilty, so locking someone up before trial is a very big deal and requires following strict rules. The judge has to 'show their work.' They must explain why other options, like GPS monitoring or a lower bail, wouldn't be enough to make sure the person doesn't run away. A judge can't use high bail to keep someone locked up just because they think the person is dangerous; there's a separate, more formal hearing for that.

Yes, it can be unfair. Judges don't have to make bail cheap enough for everyone to afford, but they do need to think about how much money the person has when deciding on bail. If they set bail so high that the person will probably have to stay in jail for a long time because they can't pay, the judge has to write down or say out loud why they did that. They need to show they thought about the person's money situation, explain how they decided on the bail amount, and say why they couldn't use other ways to make sure the person comes back for their trial. Judges also need to think about how long the person has already been in jail and if keeping them there is still fair when they look at bail again later. The judge in this case didn't show they did all these things, so we're telling them to have a new bail hearing and do it right this time.

Yes. Due process requires that where a bail amount is set so high that it is likely to result in a defendant's long-term pretrial detention due to indigence, the decision must be treated as the functional equivalent of a detention order. Both common law and constitutional principles mandate an individualized bail determination that considers a defendant's financial resources. While a defendant is not constitutionally entitled to an affordable bail, a judge who sets an unaffordable amount must provide findings of fact and a statement of reasons, orally on the record or in writing, justifying the decision. This justification must confirm consideration of the defendant's financial resources, explain why no less restrictive nonfinancial or financial conditions will adequately assure the defendant's appearance at trial, and must not be based on a defendant's perceived dangerousness, which is a matter for a separate statutory hearing.

Yes. While a judge is not required to set bail in an amount a defendant can afford, due process requires that the judge consider the defendant's financial resources when setting bail. Where bail is set in an amount that will likely result in long-term pretrial detention because the defendant cannot afford it, the judge must provide written or oral findings of fact and a statement of reasons for the bail decision. The statement must confirm the judge considered the defendant's financial resources, explain how the bail amount was calculated, and state why no alternative, less restrictive financial or nonfinancial conditions will suffice to assure the defendant's presence at future court proceedings. The judge must also consider the length of the defendant's pretrial detention and the equities of the case when bail comes up for reconsideration or review. Because the record does not show the judge adequately considered Brangan's financial resources or provided the required findings, we reverse the single justice's denial of relief and remand for a new bail hearing consistent with these standards.

Brangan v. Commonwealth

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot