Release on Own Recognizance in Criminal Law Cases

By  | 

Release on own recognizance (ROR) refers to being released from jail without posting bail while waiting trial, typically granted by judges for offenses like traffic infractions or misdemeanors, but usually not applicable for more serious felony cases.

Judges make their decision regarding ROR applications after considering many factors, such as the gravity of charges against an individual, his/her criminal history and any potential flight risks they pose.

Evaluation of Defendant’s Risk of Appearing in Court

Criminal cases are serious matters, so judges may be reluctant to grant you release on your own recognizance. As a result, defendants charged with felonies often go through a hearing before being granted release on their own recognizance. At these hearings, a judge assesses their risk of appearing in court through various criteria including understanding of charges brought against them and legal process knowledge as well as community ties, finances and bail obligations.

As defendants charged with felonies should understand, it is their responsibility to appear at court hearings as scheduled. Unfortunately, due to health or other circumstances some defendants may experience difficulty making it in time, but to assist these defendants courts frequently conduct pretrial services interviews either prior to or contemporaneous with their first appearance; during these interviews a clinician will assess both his understanding of charges against him as well as knowledge of criminal legal processes.

To ensure these interviews are conducted fairly and impartially, the clinician conducting them must undergo extensive training. A qualified clinician should also recognize when defendants are unable to provide relevant information, making recommendations to the court regarding treatment options for defendants who can no longer give answers.

These assessments can have serious ramifications for defense lawyers. Skilled defense lawyers should highlight the limitations of the underlying tool and demonstrate that high risk assessment does not equate to missed court appearances or crime committing; conversely a low risk score indicates the client will likely succeed on their own and should not require restrictive conditions on release.

When a judicial officer determines that a defendant’s release would not reasonably ensure their appearance in all proceedings, or would put others or the public interest at risk, they must impose constitutionally permissible non-financial conditions for release. The 1966 Bail Reform Act established a presumption of release as well as weighted criteria judges should use when determining conditions of release for individual cases.

Evaluation of Defendant’s Ties to the Community

Community ties of a defendant may play an integral part in whether or not they will be released on their own recognizance, with strong roots, regular employment and regular attendance at family and social events seen as good indicators for such release. Furthermore, type of crime charges also play a part – for instance if an offense involves serious charges they are less likely to receive R.O.R than minor or technical offenses like traffic violations.

Most criminal courts impose numerous conditions on those released on their own recognizance, such as checking in with a supervisor and restricting travel privileges. Furthermore, judges often place stay-away orders to ensure the defendant does not return to the scene of crime and interfere with victims or witnesses; failing to attend scheduled court dates will result in arrest and the termination of release from detention.

Most jurisdictions require defendants to agree to pay any restitution ordered as part of the outcome of their case, which can be difficult for those on low incomes; nonetheless it is crucial that defendants make payments as required to avoid arrest and license suspension.

Defender-Based Advocacy, a partnership between public defender offices or legal aid agencies and community corrections agencies, helps defendants understand the nature of their restitution payments as well as establish plans to pay it over time, including payment schedules. Studies have demonstrated this method’s success at decreasing fines, fees and lien placement fees.

A judge must carefully assess each defendant in order to be fair; this includes evaluating whether they pose a risk of violating their conditions of release or reoffending in the future, while also taking into account their ability and willingness to pay restitution and provide for basic needs. Furthermore, judges must weigh how their crimes have impacted on both victims as well as society as a whole.

Evaluation of Defendant’s Criminal History

Criminal history plays an integral part in whether or not a judge grants someone bail on their own recognizance. A prior conviction may disqualify a person from being released under their own recognizance as they pose more of a danger to society and should remain behind bars. Repeat offenders often face harsher penalties than first-time offenders, such as higher fines and longer jail terms; some judges also place conditions on defendant’s release bonds to ensure they appear for court dates as scheduled and refrain from engaging in illegal activity while out on bond.

Deliberative defendants with strong local ties and an extremely low risk of not appearing in court are more likely to be granted release on their own recognizance even when facing felony charges. A judge may require them to sign an agreement that states all of their release terms – appearing for all court dates, refraining from engaging in illegal activities and not interfering with witnesses; in addition to reviewing their financial situation to make sure they can afford any bail amounts set by the court.

An experienced forensic evaluator will also collect additional information from friends, family, and coworkers of the defendant to provide insight into their mental state and cognitive capabilities and whether or not they are competent to stand trial.

If the evaluator determines that a defendant is not competent to stand trial, they will submit their findings and testimonies as expert witnesses in court regarding these findings and competency issues of defendant. Sometimes they may recommend further evaluation by another specialist; in these instances the evaluator may conduct psychological exams or other relevant tests as part of this evaluation process.

Evaluation of Defendant’s Ability to Pay Bail

Judges in cases involving misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies generally allow defendants to be released on their own recognizance (OR), without needing to post bail. When making this determination, judges consider factors like severity of charges, criminal history of defendant, strong ties to community and whether any threats exist to public safety when making this determination.

People whose incomes cannot cover the cash needed to secure their release are typically held in jail until they can afford the required bail amount. A judge may impose financial conditions such as secured appearance bonds whereby a third-party posts collateral equal to or greater than twice that amount set as bail and pledges to pay if defendant does not appear for court appearance.

Cost can be prohibitively costly for low-income people and is an obstacle to their release from jail. Furthermore, many judges impose conditions on OR releases in order to ensure the defendant attends future court appearances; these might range from prohibiting the suspect from leaving while their case is pending to being monitored via GPS devices or reporting at certain times to an officer.

Studies by the Center for Justice Accountability have demonstrated that both secured bonds and cash bail lead to high failure-to-appear rates among low-risk defendants, making both services particularly burdensome on low income defendants. It is imperative that New York City courts and judicial officers work toward minimizing money bail’s negative effect on low income defendants by restricting it as much as possible.

To achieve this end, the Comptroller’s office advises the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) to provide guidance and clear instructions to judges when it comes to evaluating a defendant’s ability to pay when setting bail. Furthermore, OCA should mandate training sessions on laws mandating that judges consider defendant’s ability to pay and set only minimal financial conditions when setting bail; additionally they should direct judges first consider unsecure bonds before opting for partially secured ones – justifying reasons on record when not selecting this option before setting partially secured ones.