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

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) .................................................................