Menu
Log in

  SAN FRANCISCO PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION

Log in:

SFPA is a Proud Affiliate Member of NALA



News

  • 10/11/2017 8:11 AM | Deleted user

    ABA Journal News

    October 10, 2017

    By Debra Cassens Weiss 

     

     elder

     

     

    Cases in Michigan and South Carolina are raising questions about lawyers who receive guardianship appointments as a result of their relationships with hospitals.

     A Michigan judge removed lawyer Catherine Jacobs from several cases in which she served as a guardian or conservator after raising questions about a conflict of interest, the Lansing State Journal reported last week. Judge Richard Garcia of Ingham County also referred Jacobs for a possible ethics investigation, then refused her request to remove himself from her cases, the Lansing State Journal reports in another article.

     

    Garcia had removed Jacobs after noting an undisclosed agreement with a hospital in which she was paid to petition for guardianship of certain patients. In at least two of the cases, the hospital paid Jacobs for time spent with the patients after she was appointed guardian, according to the Lansing State Journal story.

     

    Garcia also said Jacobs’ granddaughter and the granddaughter’s boyfriend had lived in the home of a woman for whom Jacobs is guardian and conservator.

     

    Jacobs’ lawyer, Donald Campbell, told the Lansing State Journal that Jacobs has a “pristine record” and follows rules regarding conflicts of interest “to the ‘T.’”

     

    An alleged conflict of interest was at issue in a second case in South Carolina involving a hospital general counsel who agreed to serve as a patient’s guardian and conservator. The lawyer, Lisabeth Kirk Rogers, received a public reprimand (PDF) on Oct. 4 in an agreement for discipline by consent. The Legal Profession Blog noted the case.

     

    Rogers billed more than $8,600 for her time as conservator and paid her son $700 to do repair and cleaning work at the patient’s home. At some point, Rogers’ son moved into the home without her knowledge; she had meningitis and was hospitalized for three months during the time period. The son also vandalized the patient’s home and sold the patient’s car after forging her name on a car title, the reprimand says. Rogers reported her son to police when she discovered what had happened.

     

    Rogers didn’t immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for comment.

     

    The New Yorker, meanwhile, is raising questions about the guardianship system in Clark County, Nevada, in which elderly people were removed from their homes without notice and without a lawyer to represent them.

     

    “Hundreds of cases followed the same pattern,” the article reported. “It had become routine for guardians in Clark County to petition for temporary guardianship on an ex-parte basis. They told the court that they had to intervene immediately because the ward faced a medical emergency that was only vaguely described: he or she was demented or disoriented, and at risk of exploitation or abuse. The guardians attached a brief physician’s certificate that contained minimal details and often stated that the ward was too incapacitated to attend a court hearing.”

     

    The article focused on one guardian, April Parks, who was awarded a guardianship once a week, on average, and had up to a hundred wards at a time. There was evidence that Parks visited hospitals and lawyers to build relationships and generate leads for potential clients.

     

    Debra Bookout, an attorney at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, told the New Yorker that some hospitals were eager for a guardianship appointment. “When a hospital or rehab facility needs to free up a bed, or when the patient is not paying his bills, some doctors get sloppy, and they will sign anything,” she said, referring to the physicians’ certificate used to obtain ex parte guardianships.

     

    Parks was indicted last March for perjury and theft in a case that focused on alleged double billings and sloppy accounting, the New Yorker reported.

     

    Nevada is reforming its guardianship system; a new law will entitle all wards to be represented by lawyers in court. The New Yorker questions whether that is enough. The guardianship commissioner who approved Parks’ appointments was transferred to dependency court but didn’t lose his job. And another guardian who is considered “the godfather of guardians” in Nevada is still listed as a trustee and administrator in several cases.

     

     

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/questions_are_raised_about_guardian_oversight_and_lawyer_hospital_relations

     

     

     

  • 10/10/2017 6:56 AM | Deleted user

    ACBA Barristers Section presents

    Racial Bias Obstacles in Selecting and Litigating Police Cases

    This MCLE will cover racial and media bias associated with selecting and prosecuting police misconduct cases in federal court. The target audience includes attorneys who desire general knowledge about civil rights practice and high-profile police misconduct cases pursuant to section 1983. Attorneys who seek tips and tricks for federal court practice will also benefit.

    Speaker John Burris will spend a significant amount of time discussing racial bias in the media as well as his experience with bias in police practice. 

    Date:
    October 19, 2017
    5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.

    Location:
    ACBA
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480
    Oakland

    MCLE:
    1.5 hours general credit

    The Alameda County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider.

    Light snacks provided. If you have dietary restrictions, please plan to bring your own snacks.
    Cost:
    FREE for ACBA Members
    $115 for Non Members

    Please note: there will be a $10 administrative fee if you cannot make the program and do not cancel in advance. A $10 fee will also be assessed for day-of and walk-in registrations.

    To Register:
    Visit www.acbanet.org/Calendar
    Call (510) 302-2201
    Mail check (payable to "ACBA")
       ACBA, Attn: MCLE
       1000 Broadway, Suite 480
       Oakland, CA 94607
    Click here to register

    Speaker:

    John BurrisJohn BurrisLaw Offices of John Burris

    John Burris has been practicing law for over 40 years. He is primarily known for his work in the area of Civil Rights, with an emphasis on police misconduct excessive force cases raising federal questions under Section 1983. He has received numerous awards and recognition for his work and has been involved in organizations promoting civil rights. John often provides legal commentary for local and national print, televised media, and radio, and lectures on the topics of police and criminal justice issues. 


  • 10/10/2017 5:07 AM | Deleted user

    Bloomberg Law

    October 9, 2017

    By  Jared S. Hopkins, Bloomberg News

     
    California passed a law requiring pharmaceutical companies to explain their price increases, escalating the state-by-state battle between lawmakers trying to bring more transparency to the industry’s practices and drugmakers that oppose the efforts.

     

    The California measure, signed Monday by Governor Jerry Brown, is among the most aggressive state efforts to peel back the secretive process of setting drug prices in the U.S. The law requires pharmaceutical companies to notify insurers and government health plans at least 60 days before a planned price increase of more than 16 percent during a two-year period, and to explain the rationale for the increase. The information will be available on a government website.

     

    “Californians have a right to know why their medical costs are out of control,” Brown said at a signing ceremony in Sacramento. “This measure is a step at bringing transparency, truth, exposure, to a very important part of our lives.”

     

    Drugmakers will have to begin reporting the data in January 2019.

     

    The law — like measures in other states — is expected to be a legal target by the industry.

     

    Last month in Nevada, the industry’s two major lobbying groups — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, of PhRMA, and the Biotechnology Innovation Association, or BIO –
    – sued the state over a law requiring drug plan administrators to reveal rebates they get on diabetes drugs. In Maryland, the Association for Accessible Medicines, the trade association for generic drugmakers, challenged a state “price gouging” law, although a judge allowed it to take effect on Oct. 1.

     

    Industry Opposition

     

    In California, drugmakers spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and advertising as it worked its way through the state legislature, according to a report by NPR. BIO and PhRMA opposed the legislation and continued to criticize the measure Monday, though neither group would say if they planned to sue.

     

    The law “seriously jeopardizes” the state’s future in biotech and pharmaceuticals and will not lead to lower prescription drug costs, said BIO Senior Executive Vice President for Public Affairs Gary Andres in an emailed statement.

     

    Unlike most developed nations, the U.S. largely doesn’t regulate pricing for drugs. Consumer outrage over prices has grown in recent years because of aggressive price increases taken by companies, like Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., that acquired older drugs and sharply increased the prices.

     

    In a 2015 analysis, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 86 percent of Americans supported requiring drug companies release information on how they set prices.

     

    PhRMA said the California law wouldn’t help consumers save money.

     

    “We are ready to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of working collaboratively with the governor, legislature and health-care stakeholders to find common sense solutions that improve affordability and access for patients,” the group said in a statement.

     

    Jeff Francer, general counsel for the Association for Accessible Medicines, said in a statement that the legislation failed to accommodate for how generic drugs can fluctuate in price while continuing to decline overall.

     

    “Patients are well-served by legislative approaches which acknowledge the differences between brands and generics and which facilitate, not chill, generic competition,” Francer said.

     

     

    https://biglawbusiness.com/legal-fight-looms-over-californias-new-drug-pricing-law/

     

     

     

     

  • 10/10/2017 5:05 AM | Deleted user

    ABA Journal News

    October 10, 2017

    By Debra Cassens Weiss

     

     

    Shutterstock.com.

     

     

    Tiny-house buyers have to cope not only with the challenges of living in a smaller space. There are also zoning regulations that make it difficult to find a spot for the homes.

     

    In densely populated areas and most other areas, zoning regulations typically don’t allow full-time living in temporary structures such as RVs or movable tiny houses, the New York Times reports. The zoning laws also may specify a minimum lot size that it too expensive for a tiny-house buyer.

     

    Some municipalities—including Fresno, California, and Nantucket, Massachusetts—have changed their zoning laws to accommodate homes that share land with existing homes. In another nod to the tiny house movement, the International Code Council has adopted a model code for such structures.

     

    But change is slow. Andrew Morrison, a home builder and proponent for tiny homes, tells the Times that “easily upwards of 90 percent of tiny-house owners are living illegally, when it comes to zoning.”

     

    Some turn to RV parks for their tiny homes, but many have limits on the length of stay, Morrison says. Many park their homes in the backyard of a friend or family member in hopes that no one will complain. Others park on land in a country setting, where zoning and enforcement are looser.

     

    Brianna Welch hoped to locate her tiny home near the University of Vermont, where she will attend graduate school. The year-round RV park was full, and she and her husband encountered difficulties when a lot owner offered to rent to them. The town required installation of a septic system, which would cost about $18,000, and payment of an $8,000 impact fee.

     

    “We knew [finding land] would be the hardest part,” Welch said, “but I didn’t think it would be this hard.”

     

     

     http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/zoning_regulations_are_problematic_for_tiny_house_buyers

     

     

  • 10/10/2017 5:03 AM | Deleted user

    New York Times

    October 9, 2017

    By Adam Liptak

     

     

     Robert McCoy

     

    WASHINGTON — Two weeks before Robert McCoy was to be tried for a triple murder, his lawyer paid him a visit. It was the summer of 2011, and the two men met in a holding cell in a Louisiana courthouse. Mr. McCoy, who was facing the death penalty, told his lawyer he was innocent.

     

    Mr. McCoy was adamant. Others had committed the crimes, he said, and he wanted to clear his name.

     

    The lawyer, Larry English, said he had a different strategy.

     

    “I met with Robert at the courthouse and explained to him that I intended to concede that he had killed the three victims,” Mr. English recalled  in a sworn statement. “Robert was furious and it was a very intense meeting. He told me not to make that concession, but I told him that I was going to do so.”

     

    Capital trials have two phases. The first concerns guilt, the other punishment. Mr. English reasoned that he would forfeit his credibility with the jury if he contested what he believed was overwhelming evidence against his client in the trial’s first phase. He feared the jurors would not listen to him when he begged them to spare Mr. McCoy’s life in the second phase.

     

    Conceding guilt in a capital case is sometimes the right play. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether it is permissible even if the man whose life is at stake objects.

     

    Mr. McCoy was accused of killing Christine Colston Young, Willie Young and Gregory Colston, who were the mother, stepfather and son of Mr. McCoy’s estranged wife. There was substantial evidence that he had done so. There was also reason to think that Mr. McCoy’s belief in his innocence was both earnest and delusional.

     

    There was no ambiguity in Mr. McCoy’s position, Mr. English recalled.

     

    “I know that Robert was completely opposed to me telling the jury that he was guilty of killing the three victims,” Mr. English said. “But I believed that this was the only way to save his life.”

     

    After the meeting, Mr. McCoy tried to fire his lawyer, saying he would rather represent himself. Judge Jeff Cox, of the Bossier Parish District Court, turned him down.

     

    “Mr. English is your attorney, and he will be representing you,” the judge said.

    Mr. McCoy’s parents had paid Mr. English $5,000 to defend their son. They had borrowed the money, using their car as collateral. 

     

    In a letter to Judge Cox before the trial, Mr. McCoy’s parents said they rued their decision. Mr. English “is neither prepared nor capable of adequately representing our son,” they wrote. When they tried to discuss the case with Mr. English, they wrote, he responded with a tirade and “insulted us by talking to us as if we were children.”

     

    During his opening statement at the trial, Mr. English did what he had promised to do. “I’m telling you,” he told the jury, “Mr. McCoy committed these crimes.”

     

    Mr. McCoy objected. “Judge Cox,” he said, “Mr. English is simply selling me out.”

     

    “I did not murder my family, your honor,” Mr. McCoy said. “I had alibis of me being out of state. Your honor, this is unconstitutional for you to keep an attorney on my case when this attorney is completely selling me out.”

     

    Whatever its wisdom, Mr. English’s trial strategy failed. Mr. McCoy was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, saying his lawyer had betrayed him. The court ruled against him.

     

    “Given the circumstances of this crime and the overwhelming evidence incriminating the defendant,” the court said, “admitting guilt in an attempt to avoid the imposition of the death penalty appears to constitute reasonable trial strategy.”

     

    The decision relied on a unanimous 2004 ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Nixon, which said lawyers need not obtain their clients’ express consent before conceding guilt in a capital case. But the ruling did not address whether it was permissible for a lawyer to disregard a client’s explicit instruction to the contrary.

     

    That is the question in the new case, McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255.

     

    The right answer, Louisiana prosecutors told the justices, is that lawyers may ignore their clients’ wishes. “Counsel’s strategic choices should not be impeded by a rigid blanket rule demanding the defendant’s consent,” they wrote in a brief urging the court not to hear the case.

     

    Mr. English declined requests for an interview, saying he would not comment until after the Supreme Court ruled.

     

    In a brief supporting Mr. McCoy, the Ethics Bureau at Yale, a law school clinic, said Mr. English had essentially switched sides. “Far from testing the prosecution’s case,” the brief said, “Mr. English seemed downright eager to advance it.”

     

    Mr. McCoy’s situation is not particularly unusual, according to a second supporting brief, this one filed by the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Promise of Justice Initiative, a nonprofit group. “In Louisiana,” the brief said, “a capital defendant has no right to a lawyer who will insist on his innocence.”

     

    Since 2000, the brief said, the Louisiana Supreme Court allowed defense lawyers to concede their clients’ guilt in four other capital cases over the clients’ express objections.

     

    The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to “the assistance of counsel.” Those words, the Supreme Court said in 1975 in Faretta v. California, indicate that the client is the boss.

     

    “It speaks of the ‘assistance’ of counsel,” Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant.”

     

     

     https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/us/politics/death-penalty-supreme-court-attorney.html

     

     

  • 10/09/2017 8:33 AM | Deleted user

    Image result for alrp san francisco 

     

     

    HIV/AIDS & Confidentiality -

    A Review of Privacy Rights and Remedies

     

     

    • TOMORROW - Tuesday, October 10, 5:30pm - 7:00pm
    • Bar Association of San Francisco - 301 Battery Street, 3rd Floor, Board Room, San Francisco, CA 94111
    • 1.5 General CLE Credits
    • Overview: HIV+ clients often find that the privacy of their status is regularly overlooked by healthcare workers, social workers, and others who inadvertently disclose their HIV/AIDS status.  This disclosure is often emotionally devastating and financially disastrous.  Fortunately, California courts have long recognized the right to privacy for those living with HIV/AIDS.  This training will discuss the common law and statutory law protections that safeguard confidentiality.  It will also analyze various violations of this right and the remedies for these violations.

    This is a free training open to all attorneys, paralegals, law students, and those interested in the legal field. Please see below for admittance details. We hope to see you there!

     

    To register, email mcle@alrp.org or

    call (415) 701-1200 ext 303 

                         

     

    Who Can Attend?

     

    All active ALRP Panel Attorneys and associates at partner pro bono law firms are welcome to attend the trainings. Attorneys who are not yet members of the Panel are requested to join the Panel and accept two ALRP referrals in the next year. 

     

    The BASF Board Room is accessible to people with disabilities. Attendees who might require a reasonable accommodation (including alternative-to-print formats of materials) are invited to contact the ALRP Volunteer Coordinator in advance of the training (contact information below).

       

    Learn More:

    ALRP provides free and low-cost legal services to people with HIV/AIDS in the San Francisco Bay Area. For questions about ALRP or our free MCLE trainings, please contact the Volunteer Coordinator Hannah Center at hannah@alrp.org or 415-701-1200 ext. 303.

     

    ALRP trainings have been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California. The State Bar of California has certified ALRP, Provider #2485. 

     

    1663 Mission Street, Suite 500      San Francisco, California 94103
    Phone: 415-701-1200    Fax: 415-701-1400
        www.alrp.org

    "Like" ALRP on Facebook!  facebook.com/AIDSLegalReferralPanel

     

      
  • 10/09/2017 8:31 AM | Deleted user

    Washington Post

    October 9, 2017

     

     

    Constitutional

     

    A podcast about the story of America

     

    With the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the framers set out a young nation’s highest ideals. And ever since, we’ve been fighting over it — what is in it and what was left out. At the heart of these arguments is the story of America.

     

    As a follow-up to the popular Washington Post podcast “Presidential,” reporter Lillian Cunningham returns with this series exploring the Constitution and the people who framed and reframed it — revolutionaries, abolitionists, suffragists, teetotalers, protesters, justices, presidents – in the ongoing struggle to form a more perfect union across a vast and diverse land.

     

    Artwork by Michelle Thompson for The Washington Post

     

     

     

    Episode 08: Fair trials

     

    In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that states must offer a defense attorney to all poor people accused of crimes. The decision transformed the concept of fair trials in America, but left major challenges to the justice system today. 

     

     

     https://soundcloud.com/washington-post/episode-08-fair-trials

     

     

     

  • 10/07/2017 12:08 AM | Deleted user

    ABA Journal News

    October 6, 2017

    By Debra Cassens Weiss

     

    Victims of Sunday night’s mass shooting in Las Vegas and their family members are being offered free civil legal help by the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada.

     

    The center is prepared to help with several types of legal issues stemming from the tragedy, according to the State Bar of Nevada E-News. Those issues include:

     

    • Child custody orders and orders for guardianship for orphaned children.

    • Help with probate and wills.

    • Assistance with landlord/tenant and other real property issues.

    • Help with banking and safe deposit boxes.

    • Assistance with benefits such as life insurance claims and death or disability claims.

    • Help with debt collection stemming from unpaid bills.

     

    If the legal issue is outside Nevada, the Legal Aid Center will coordinate with the State Bar of Nevada to find an appropriate referral. It will also refer some cases to pro bono lawyers.

     

     

     http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/las_vegas_victims_and_their_families_are_offered_free_civil_legal_help

     

     

     

  • 10/07/2017 12:06 AM | Deleted user

    ABA Journal News

    October 6, 2017

    By Debra Cassens Weiss

     

     Jeff Sessions

    U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. mark reinstein / Shutterstock.com

     

     

    Updated: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect transgender individuals from workplace discrimination, according to a memo by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

     

    The memo (PDF) says Sessions is sticking to the language of the law, which bars discrimination in employment because of an individual’s sex. Title VII bans discrimination between men and women, but it “does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status,” he writes. BuzzFeed News and the National Law Journal (sub. req.) have stories.

     

    The memo retracts a position established during the Obama administration.

     

    The memo says it should not be construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity, or to express a policy view on whether Congress should amend Title VII to provide additional protections.

     

    The Justice Department has already signaled it is giving a narrow interpretation to Title VII in an amicus brief submitted to a federal appeals court in July. The brief said Title VII does not protect workers from employment bias based on sexual orientation.

     

    The memo and the amicus brief are at odds with the position of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which says Title VII protects discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

     

    Sharon McGowan, a former Justice Department lawyer who now works for Lambda Legal, says the memo doesn’t discuss developing case law. “It demonstrates that this memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is—it’s a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were,” McGowan told BuzzFeed News.

     

    ABA President Hilarie Bass issued a statement criticizing the new Justice Department position. It reads:

     

    “The American Bar Association is disappointed with the Department of Justice’s position reversing the department’s 2014 decision to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity.

     

    “For decades, the ABA has vigorously opposed such discrimination and, more recently, has urged the enactment of legislation to strengthen protections for LGBT workers to further the ABA’s belief that all Americans—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—should be protected from discrimination in the workplace.”

     

    Updated at 8:10 a.m. to include statement by Bass.

     

     

     http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sessions_memo_says_title_vii_doesnt_bar_discrimination_against_transgender

     

     

     

  • 10/07/2017 12:04 AM | Deleted user

    San Jose Mercury News

    October 4, 2017

    By Tracey Kaplan

     

    An advertisement with the names of four dozen bail bonds and criminal defense attorneys hangs over two pay phones in the Santa Clara County Main Jail waiting room in San Jose, Calif., Monday afternoon, May 9, 2016. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    Advertisements like this containing the names of four dozen bail bonds companies and criminal defense attorneys used to hang over two pay phones in the Santa Clara County Main Jail waiting room in San Jose, Calif. The county removed the signage, though it provides a list of such services. Using a MacArthur Foundation grant, the county plans to develop a video and posters about bail alternatives.

     

     

    SAN JOSE — While state and federal lawmakers continue to grapple with bail reform, Santa Clara County moved ahead Tuesday with a wide-ranging plan that includes creating a nonprofit fund to post bonds for low-risk defendants who otherwise couldn’t afford it.

     

    The fund is believed to be the first in California, cementing the county’s role as a statewide leader in a national reform movement. Bail reform advocates, including local police chiefs and civil rights leaders, argue that bail has become an unfair burden on the poor, allowing moneyed defendants to stay free while those who can’t afford bond languish behind bars awaiting their day in court.

     

    “They are one of our model sites in the country, pushing the envelope as far it can go,’’ said Cherise Fanno Burdeen, CEO of the Maryland-based Pretrial Justice Institute, adding that she knows of no other jurisdiction with such a fund in California.

     

    The California Bail Agents Association opposes the changes, saying the critics are trying to dismantle a system that works at no cost to taxpayers. The fund would include $250,000 in seed money to be matched by private parties or nonprofit sources, and potentially yearly funding to cover some administrative expenses.

     

    In addition to the fund, county supervisors Tuesday unanimously approved starting a search for a nonprofit to run a program that would help ensure a defendant’s appearance at all court hearings, including by providing bus passes and other means to get to court.

     

    The board also backed a pilot program allowing corrections officials — rather than judges — to free low- to moderate-risk inmates and equip them with electronic ankle bracelets to monitor their whereabouts.

    The county also will install a credit/debit machine for inmates who want to charge their bail instead of paying nonrefundable fees to a bondsman. That could be in place by spring.

     

    However, the most far-reaching aspects of the plan are a ways off. The bail fund, which will be run by a community-based organization with $250,000 in county seed money — isn’t expected to open until at least next fall. The organization would be required to raise matching funds from private donors. Sources said potential donors include the Future Justice Fund, founded by the creator of Instagram and his wife after he sold the company.

     

    The ankle bracelet program is set to start in January, but sheriff’s officials who run the Department of Correction, may not be ready by then, sources said.

     

    About 8.2 million of the 11 annual arrests across the country are for relatively low-level misdemeanor offenses, according to the Pretrial Justice Institute.

     

    Advocates contend that more people can be released without impacting public safety after being reviewed under a risk-assessment protocol developed by Santa Clara County’s Pretrial Services Department.

     

    For instance, in Washington, D.C., where 80 percent of defendants are now released without bail, 88 percent make all scheduled court appearances and avoid new arrests, and 99 percent avoid new arrests for violent crimes.

     

    But the California Bail Agents Association opposes the changes, among other concerns, points to a recent uptick in California’s violent crime rate.

     

    However, California’s violent crime rate remains comparable to levels seen in the late 1960s. And property crime was down 2.9 percent and remained lower than it was in 2010, before a wave of reforms easing the state’s tough-on-crime approach began.

     

    In San Jose, violent crime last year rose 14.3 percent from 2015 — greater than the 4.1 percent rise seen nationwide, according to FBI figures released last week. However, property crimes in San Jose were down slightly more than 1 percent — similar to the national decrease.

     

    Community bail funds, though, will not be used initially for people facing felony charges. According to the staff report, community bail funds elsewhere are limited to bail amounts of $500 to $2,000 — but that could be adjusted “given the high local bail” compared with what’s seen other areas. It would be a revolving fund, with money taken out to pay bail then returned when the defendant completes the required court appearances.

     

    Garry Herceg, deputy county executive, said it was hard to estimate how many people would be affected by the bail reforms. As of Sept. 1, there were more than 2,350 post-arraignment, pre-sentenced defendants in custody. But the majority of those are in on felony charges, with about 260 in for misdemeanors.

     

    The fund would only be used for  those of little means to pay bail themselves.

     

    “Obviously everyone is not going to be eligible — we’re not going to use it for a Google executive,” Herceg said. “We’re also not going to allow high-risk individuals. Those are obvious cases. But repeat low-level offenders — do we want to use jail for that? The criminal justice system is still trying to figure that out, what is the acceptable level of risk.”

     

    Jeffrey Stanley, owner of Bad Boys Bail Bonds, said he fears people will be released with no guarantee that they’ll come back to court.

     

    “We ensure they come back, at no cost to taxpayers,” he said after Tuesday’s board meeting. “We ask people to co-sign for them, so someone is responsible.”

    He added that low-level crimes shouldn’t be brushed off.

     

    “Nobody starts off robbing banks,” Stanley said. “It starts with petty theft, drug usage. Santa Clara County used to be one of the safest metro areas in the state but we’ve seen a dramatic increase in crime. We got to stop being light on crime and hold people accountable.”

     

    The county’s staff has urged officials to eliminate for-profit bail entirely and to push state lawmakers to do the same. According to their report, the bail industry is highly lucrative in Santa Clara County. Last year, bail agents posted more than 7,500 bail bonds for bail amounts totaling about $198 million. For posting these bonds, commercial bail bond agents “may have pocketed as much as $19.8 million in nonrefundable premiums in 2015 alone,” the report said.

     

    Santa Clara County’s plan, however, probably won’t take a big bite out of the industry’s profits — at least at first — because of the initial focus on misdemeanor cases. The idea is to change the culture by gathering statistics on what officials expect to be a low rate of new offenses or no-shows in court.

     

    Kentucky, Oregon, Wisconsin and Illinois are among the jurisdictions that  have banned the for-profit businesses, replaced it with systems allowing defendants to deposit 10 percent of their bail amounts directly with the court — and to get the money back if they make their court appearances.

     

    Inmates awaiting trial cost urban counties like Santa Clara County tens of millions annually to house. The county estimates that it costs $15 per day per defendant to supervise those released from jail while awaiting trial and $3 per day for electronic monitoring via ankle bracelets, compared with at least $159 per day per inmate for those who remain behind bars.

     

    The plan is the result of a two-year effort by a bail release work group set up by the county and spearheaded by Supervisor Cindy Chavez, which included voices from activist groups such as Silicon Valley De-Bug as well as law enforcement, jail and court officials.

     

    Chavez said it’s critical for the county to take up the matter because of inaction at the state level.

     

    “We’re having this conversation at a local level because it couldn’t be done at the state level,” she said. “And local government is the best place to figure out what works.”

     

     

     http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/03/bail-reform-awaiting-trial-but-cant-afford-bond-silicon-valley-moving-to-free-more-suspects/

     

     



@2024 San Francisco Paralegal Association

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE EMAIL US:

INFO@SFPA.COM

San Francisco Paralegal Association

1 Sansome Street, Suite 3500

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415) 946-8935