that the triggering factors would, in any event, constitute appropriate cause for a procedurally constitutional revocation of pretrial release, probation or parole. The principal difference between S.1554 and the American Bar Association's Standards on Pretrial Release involves the use of pretrial detention. PRETRIAL DETENTION While the central thrust of the Association's 31 separate black letter Standards on Pretrial Release favors release of persons accused of crime pending adjudication, our standards also recognize that "some restraints on the defendant's liberty may be crucial to allow the process to go forward. . ." ABA Standard 10-5.9 deals specifically with pretrial detention and it provides a procedure for a pretrial detention hearing which may be triggered by: (a) a judicial determination that monetary bail is necessary, (b) a judicial determination that defendant has willfully (c) a judicial determination that there is probable cause to believe defendant has committed a crime while on pretrial (d) by formal complaint from a prosecutor, law enforcement officer or representative of the pretrial release agency that defendant is likely to flee, threaten or intimidate witnesses, or constitutes a danger to the community as evidenced by (b) or (c) above. The fourth triggering event set forth above relates to a defendant's "dangerousness." This Association is mindful of the fact that some defendants on bail pending trial do commit additional offenses and we share the concern over this problem expressed by both law enforcement agencies and the public. As lawyers we know that the denial of bail is a serious step which materially decreases a defendant's ability to assist counsel in preparing an adequate defense. In recognition of that fact Standard 10-5.2 provides for the setting of "any reasonable restriction designed to ensure . the safety of the community." The standards provide that violation of those conditions of release can subject the defendant to arrest and require either the setting of new conditions or the scheduling of a pretrial detention hearing within five calendar days (Standard 10-5.7). The standards also provide that where probable cause is shown to believe a released defendant has committed a new crime, a pretrial detention hearing should be scheduled within five calendar days (Standard 10-5.8). Finally, the standards provide for full pretrial detention hearings (Standard 10-5.9) and for the accelerated trial of detained defendants (Standard 10-5.10). Notwithstanding the recent decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals which upheld the District of Columbia's pretrial detention statute (U.S. v. Edwards, D.C. Court of Appeals No. 80-294 and Edwards v. U.S., D.C. Court of Appeals No. 80-401, decided May 8, 1981), the constitutionality of preventive detention remains to be tested by the Supreme Court. Our standards, Mr. Chairman, provide a detailed mechanism for triggering a pretrial detention hearing based upon present conduct and not upon a generalized prediction of dangerousness. Under Standard 10-5.9 a defendant may be determined to consititute a danger to the community and may be detained because: the defendant has committed a criminal offense since release; or, are sufficient to protect the community. American Bar Association policy favors the release of defendants pending the determination of guilt or innocence. Notwithstanding that overriding predilection for release, our standards recognize and provide for pretrial detention where a defendant's alleged commission of a new crime or a defendant's violation of release conditions require swift judicial action Mr. Chairman, I ought to point out that the American Bar Association's a pretrial detention standard. This new standard requires a judicial officer to convene a pretrial detention hearing when a defendant fails to satisfy the conditions of monetary bond, when a defendant has violated a condition of release, when there is probable cause to believe that a defendant on release has committed a crime, or when an appropriate official by verified complaint alleges that a released defendant is likely to flee, threaten or intimidate witnesses or court personnel, or constitutes a danger to the community. I have already alluded to the factors which determine whether or nor a defendant constitutes a danger to the community under Standard 10-5.9. In the main those factors are ones which occur subsequent to initial pretrial release. Thus, a defendant who commits a new offense or a defendant who violates conditions of initial release would be subject to a pretrial detention hearing because of acts committed while on release. In contrast, S.1554 would seem to allow pretrial detention based more heavily upon a defendant's past conduct and therefore upon a prediction as to the defendant's likely future conduct. Because of our concerns over general predictions of future dangerousness, we have attempted to limit our pretrial detention standard to cover cases in which a pretrial detention hearing is triggered by the defendant's violation of release conditions. Although this is a most difficult and troubling area for lawyers and the community, I think you will find that the ABA Standards on Pretrial Release contain a scrupulous regard for the safety of the community. In a general sense our Pretrial Release Standards favor the release of charged defendants and suggest that those defendants who qualify for release should be most carefully monitored by effective pretrial service agencies. Our standards also call for prompt reporting of release violations and for equally prompt judicial action upon the receipt of such reports. Then, and only then, do our standards fully support the concept of pretrial detention. The task of finding solutions to the social blight of crime and delinquency is not an easy one. For 18 years the American Bar Association has labored to produce standards which will improve the fairness and the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. The 469 black letter standards contained within the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice represent the views of the world's largest volunteer professional association. These standards embody our legal learning, our experience and our aspirations for a system of criminal justice which truly protects the public while dealing fairly and expeditiously with those charged with crimes. I commend the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to you and your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that they will assist you in the exercise of your important responsibilities. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we support the elimination of compensated sureties but feel that limited use of money bond and of uncompensated sureties continue to represent useful judicial alternatives. We support the concept of including consideration of community safety as a necessary element in the formulation of release conditions and, where violations of those conditions occur or when pretrial defendants commit new offenses we support the prompt convening of procedurally adequate pretrial detention hearings. We provide for pretrial detention in limited and carefully controlled circumstances but we do not support pretrial detention based solely upon a defendant's past conduct or upon a general prediction of future dangerousness. |