James Schoppmann, #023452
Chief Deputy Mohave County Attorney
315 N. 4th Street
Kingman, AZ 86401 [email protected]
Phone: (928) 753-0753
The Substitute amendment to Rule 7.4(c)(1) is illogical and is inconsistent with A.R.S. 13-3967(B) and Rule 7.2(a). The substitute proposal allows the defendant to literally move for a redetermination of release conditions the second after the court sets release conditions by simply claiming she/he is unable to post the bond. Despite one’s views on the issue of bail, the law does allow a judge’s consideration of the statutory factors to result in a bail that the defendant is unable to post - period. The substitute proposal conflates the issue of determining and setting an actual bail amount to assure appearance and actually being released. The law does allow these two issues to be mutually exclusive.
The new language in Rule 7.4(c)(1) suggests that the judge is not skilled or apt enough to follow 7.2(a)(3) which requires the judge to consider the defendant’s “employment [and] financial resources” under A.R.S. 13-3967(B)(7).
Why don’t the drafters of this substitute proposal language just come right out and say the judge should just ask the defendant what she/he would like her/his bail to be?
I copied the suspect substitute proposal language below:
Rule 7.4 Procedure
(a) and (b) [no change]
(c) Later Review of Conditions.
(1) Generally. On motion or on its own, a court may reexamine bail eligibility or the conditions of release if the case is transferred to a different court, or if a motion alleges the existence of material facts not previously presented to the court, or, if not previously raised under this provision, the defendant is unable to post bond due to the defendant’s financial condition.