Stack v. Boyle

Background

Twelve people indicted in California under the Smith Act were initially given very different bail amounts and later uniformly held on $50,000 bail each. They submitted sworn statements about their finances, family ties, health, and records; the Government offered only a certified record about four other, unrelated convictions. After a district judge denied their motion to reduce bail, the petitioners sought habeas relief, which was denied by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted review because the questions affect criminal justice administration.

Reasoning

The Court explained that the long-standing right to release before conviction exists to allow defendants to prepare their defense and avoid punishment before trial. Bail must be set to assure a defendant’s appearance and must consider the offense, strength of evidence, ability to pay, and character. Fixing a uniform, unusually high bail based only on indictment or public concern is arbitrary and incompatible with Rule 46(c) and the Eighth Amendment. The Court held that habeas was not the proper first remedy when a statutory procedure to reduce bail exists; instead, defendants should move to reduce bail in the criminal case and may appeal a denial as a final decision.

Real world impact

The Court vacated the appellate judgment, ordered the District Court to vacate and dismiss the habeas applications without prejudice, and directed that the defendants be allowed to seek individualized bail hearings. This means judges must base bail on evidence about each person rather than imposing blanket high sums.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Frankfurter) emphasized restoring proper bail standards, limiting habeas use, and treating orders denying reduction as appealable, while urging appellate restraint.