Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pre Grand Jury topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bar lawyers urge enforceable jail reviews and clearer bond and jurisdiction rules
Summary
Defense attorneys and prosecutors told the Judiciary Committee that Rule 8.5 jail reviews are not being performed consistently and urged statutory fixes — including a possible 270‑day cap for incarcerated people without indictment, bright-line rules about when lower courts lose jurisdiction after binding over cases, and clearer bond-setting templates — while prosecutors cautioned against strict automatic dismissal deadlines.
At a Judiciary Committee listening session, lawyers and prosecutors urged clearer statutory guidance and enforcement to speed pre‑grand‑jury proceedings, strengthen bail review practices and reduce the number of arrests that linger without prosecution.
Mike Carr, a criminal defense attorney, said Rule 8.5 (jail review) currently lacks enforcement mechanisms and described understaffed district attorney offices and missing court reporters that prevent timely hearings. Carr proposed a statutory rule that incarcerated defendants be released if not indicted within 270 days and argued that such a cap would prevent arrests from indefinitely damaging people’s employment and educational prospects.
Bodie McDonald, who serves as a city prosecutor and participates in the Mississippi Bar, urged bright-line statutory language defining when lower courts lose jurisdiction after a case is bound over to circuit court. He said uncertainty about when lower courts may amend bond orders encourages inconsistent bond setting and suggested adopting clear templates (citing Rule 8.2 guidance) to reduce emotional, high bond decisions in non-record courts.
Laurel Brinkley, assistant district attorney and president of the prosecutors’ section, said prosecutors were neutral on some proposals and described local practices that already use regular jail reviews; she opposed an absolute automatic-dismissal deadline but supported enforceable jail reviews and judge-led scrutiny on cases that linger.
Panelists reported system shortfalls that impede timely movement of cases: understaffed DA offices, delayed crime-lab results, missing court reporters and uneven local practices on appointment of counsel. Witnesses recommended better statewide data collection, clear statutory windows or review triggers, and improved local protocols for bond review and prompt appointment of counsel when cases proceed from lower to circuit courts.
Committee members asked how electronic monitoring compares to cash bonds, statutory provisions on bond percentages, and how local appointment practices operate; no statutory changes were adopted at the hearing.
The committee directed staff to gather detailed data on jail-review practices, bond amounts and the timing of bound-over cases to inform any statutory drafting.
