Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bail Pretrial Practices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superior court officers describe bail rules, pretrial risk tool and why judges sometimes still set bail
Summary
Superior court Commissioner Casey Emmerich and Judge Jones explained Washington criminal-rule 3.2, the presumption of release on personal recognizance, and how pretrial risk reports inform but do not automatically determine release or bail amounts.
Superior court judicial officers explained to the Whatcom County Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force’s Legal & Justice Systems Committee on May 13 how the courts apply state rules when setting bail and release conditions and why judges sometimes impose bail even when pretrial risk tools show low risk.
“Any person…shall be released on their personal recognizance pending trial unless the court determines that personal recognizance will not reasonably assure the accused’s appearance,” said Commissioner Casey Emmerich, citing Criminal Rule 3.2 and the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 20. She said judicial officers consider factors such as criminal history, appearance history and the allegations in the charging document before determining whether the presumption of release has been overcome.
Judge Jones added that superior court calendars are available for regular review of release conditions and that judges will reconsider bail or conditions on short notice when circumstances change. “We are always reviewing those things,” he said, noting the court can increase bail, issue warrants or adjust conditions when a released defendant violates terms or new information emerges.
Why it matters: The committee is charged with analyzing bail practice and racial/ethnic bias in release decisions. Members told judicial officers they want clarity on why, despite the adoption of an evidence-based pretrial risk assessment, many defendants still have bail imposed.
Court officers described how pretrial reports are used: the pretrial risk instrument produces risk tiers (low/medium/high) and quantifies factors for judges’ consideration, but judges also rely on local case history, previous behavior while on pretrial release and evidence presented in open court. Emmerich said courts must first consider least-restrictive alternatives — no-contact orders, travel restrictions or supervision — before setting bail amounts. She also said the court must consider an individual’s ability to pay when imposing financial conditions.
Committee members raised concerns about consistency and potential bias. Several members said judges appear mindful of race and ethnicity and that decisions are case-specific; others asked whether the risk tool’s intended reduction in reliance on financial bail is being realized. Judicial officers and pretrial staff said the tool is a useful input but not dispositive.
No formal policy changes or votes were taken. Committee members requested the bench card and research documents shared by Judge Jones and asked staff to circulate the pretrial financial-conditions research and bench cards to committee members for further review.
