in the united states district court · pdf file are the foundation of liberty. toward those...

Click here to load reader

Post on 18-Jul-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • No. 17-13139

    IN THE

    United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

    ________________________

    MAURICE WALKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,

    Plaintiff-Appellee,

    v.

    CITY OF CALHOUN, G.A.,

    Defendant-Appellant.

    ________________________

    On Appeal from the United States District Court

    for the Northern District of Georgia

    No. 4:15-cv-00170-HLM

    ________________________

    BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE CATO INSTITUTE

    SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

    Ilya Shapiro

    Counsel of Record

    Trevor Burrus (admission pending)

    CATO INSTITUTE

    1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW

    Washington, DC 20001

    (202) 842-0200

    ishapiro@cato.org

    Counsel for Amicus Curiae

  • Walkerv. City a/Calhoun, GA, No. 17-13139

    CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and Eleventh Cir. R. 26.1-1, the Cato

    Institute declares that it is a nonprofit public policy research foundation dedicated

    in pali to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law. Cato states that it

    has no parent corporation and only issues a handful of shares that are privately held

    by its directors. No publicly held corporation has a direct financial interest in the

    outcome of this litigation due to the participation of Cato.

    FUliher, the undersigned counsel certifies that, in addition to the list of

    interested persons celiified in the Appellants' Brief and supplemented by the

    celiificates in the Briefs of the State Appellees-Cross-Appellants and the Private

    Plaintiffs-Appellees, the following persons may have an interest in the outcome of

    this case, and that to the best of his knowledge, the list of persons and entities in

    the Briefs for Appellants and Appellees are otherwise complete:

    COUNSEL FOR A MlC US CURIAE Ilya Shapiro

    Counsel of Record Trevor Burrus (admission pending)

    C-l

    ASSOCIA TrONS

    Cato Institute

    Cato Institute

  • i

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE

    DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .............................................................................. C-1

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii

    INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 1

    ISSUE ADDRESSED BY AMICUS CURIAE .......................................................... 1

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1

    ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2

    I. THE RIGHT TO BAIL EXISTS AT CONSTITUTIONAL AND

    COMMON LAW FOR MISDEMEANANTS AND MOST FELONS ............... 2

    A. The English Authorities from before the Magna Carta to the Revolution

    Confirm the Right to Bail ................................................................................ 2

    B. American Constitutional and Common Law Incorporates and Upholds

    a Right to Bail .................................................................................................. 7

    II. THE RIGHT TO BAIL GUARANTEES NON-EXCESSIVE,

    INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENTS NOT FIXED BY A PRE-

    DETERMINED SCHEME ................................................................................. 12

    A. Pre-Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary Constitutional and

    Common Law Commits Bail to Judicial Discretion to Avoid

    Excessive Bail for Indigents and to Ensure Sufficient Sureties ....................13

    B. Pre-Determined, Non-Individualized Bail Schemes Violate the

    Right to Pre-Trial Liberty, the Right to Bail, the Right Against

    Excessive Bail, and the Equal Protection Clause ..........................................18

    CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 19

    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 20

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 21

  • ii

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    * Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with an asterisk

    Page(s)

    Cases

    Bates v. Pilling, 149 Eng. Rep. 805 (K.B. 1834) .....................................................16

    Daw v. Swaine, 1 Sid. 424, 21 Car. 2 424, 88 Eng. Rep. 1195 (C.P. 1670) ............15

    Darnel’s Case, 3 How. St. Tr. 1 (1627) ...............................................................6, 14

    Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) ................................................. 2, 12, 18

    Ex Parte Hutchings, 11 Tex. App. 28 (Tex. 1881) ..................................................17

    Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) ........................................................... 2, 12, 18

    Jones v. Kelly, 17 Mass. 116 (1821) ........................................................................17

    Kennedy v. Mendoza–Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) ............................................... 5

    King v. Bowes, 1 T.R. 696, 99 Eng. Rep. 1327 (K.B. 1787) ............................ 13, 16

    Neal v. Spencer, 10 Will. 3 257, 88 Eng. Rep. 1305 (K.B. 1698) ...........................15

    New Mexico v. Brown, 338 P.3d 1276 (N.M. 2014) ..............................................7, 8

    Parker v. Langley, 11 Anne 145, 88 Eng. Rep. 667 (Q.B. 1712) ............................15

    Smith v. Boucher, 10 Geo. 2 136, 27 Eng. Rep. 782 (K.B. 1736) .......................6, 15

    * Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) ..................................................................... 9-10

    United States v. Brawner, 7 Fed. 86 (W.D. Tenn. 1881) .........................................17

    United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ...................................... 5

    United States v. Lawrence, 26 Fed. Cas. 887 (No. 15,557) (D.C. Cir. 1835) .........17

    United States v. Radford, 361 F.2d 777 (4th Cir. 1966) ..........................................17

    * United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) .............................................. 10, 18

    United States v. Wong-Alvarez, 779 F.2d 583 (11th Cir. 1985) ..............................19

    Walker v. City of Calhoun, No. 4:15-CV-0170-HLM, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis

    12305 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2016) ............................................................................19

    Whiting v. Putnam, 17 Mass. 175 (1821) ................................................................17

  • iii

    Statutes

    Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, § 33 .................................................................. 8-9

    Northwest Ordinance of 1787, art. 2 .......................................................................... 9

    Other Authorities

    1166 Assize of Claredon ............................................................................................ 6

    * Bill of Rights, 1 W. & M., c. 2 (1689) ................................................. 7, 11, 15, 17

    Caleb Foote, The Coming Constitutional Crisis in Bail: I, 113 U. Pa. L. Rev.

    959 (1965) .........................................................................................................8, 14

    Co. Inst. 190 ............................................................................................................... 5

    Co. Inst. 191 .................................................................................................... 3, 5, 10

    Daniel J. Freed & Patricia M. Wald, Bail in the United States: 1964 (1964) ........... 3

    * Elsa De Haas, Antiquities of Bail: Origin and Development in Criminal

    Cases to the Year 1275 (1966) ..................................................................... passim

    Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 31 Cha. II. c2 .................................................... 6-7, 15

    Henri de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae 295

    (c. 1235, reprnt’d 1990) ....................................................................................3, 10

    J. Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law (William Brown,

    Philadelphia 1819) ................................................................................................16

    Magna Charta ch. 29 (1225) ...................................................................................... 5

    Magna Charta ch. 32 (1216) ........................................................................... 5, 8, 11

    Magna Charta ch. 39 (1215) ...................................................................................... 5

    Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) ................................................................... 8

    Matthew J. Hegreness, America's Fundamental and Vanishing Right to Bail,

    55 Ariz. L. Rev. 909 (2013) .................................................................

View more