The Case of United States V Salerno

November 12, 2022AdminLaw

The Case of United States V Salerno

PART 1

Facts

In the year 1984, the Bail Reform Act was passed by Congress. This Act permits any federal court to capture an arrestee prior to trial in case the government is in the position to reveal that the safety of other people will be compromised upon the release of this individual. Moreover, the government is required to accompany its revelation by a clear and convincing proof. The Bail Reform Act demands an adversary hearing in which the arrestee is granted the opportunity to have an attorney (Price, 1988). Besides, the arrestee may be allowed to testify and submit a witness or witnesses, proffer a proof, and conduct a cross-examination on the government’s witnesses. However, the verdict is often left to judicial officers, but the Congress listed relevant factors, which needs to be considered. In the case of Salerno v United States, Salerno who happened to be the defendant was arrested together with another man after they were charged on a 29-count condemnation (abanet.org). At the defendant’s arraignment, the federal government made a move of having him arrested pursuant to the provision of the 1984 Act. Consequently, at the hearing, the federal government demonstrated that Salerno came from a powerful family in which he was the “boss”. As such the court of the district granted the federal government’s detention motion. Besides, this court concluded that the federal government had met its task. Contrastingly, the courts of appeal held that the Bail Reform Act was not constitutional in relation to its face as a breach of due course.

Issues

In this case, the issue that emerged was whether the pre-trial imprisonment of a criminal who is considered potentially dangerous is punitive or not. Therefore, there was an unconstitutional denial of liberty without the adherence to the due course of the law of the United States.

Court’s Holding of the Case

The Supreme Court held that the ruling of the District Court breached the substantive due process. This is because it interfered with the right of the defendant in an unreasonable way. In its ruling, the court held that imprisonment without bail charged the suspects for the anticipated future offenses. Furthermore, the court reversed the District Court’s decision by holding that the overturning of the legislation could be done in a situation where the set of circumstances that existed under the Bail Reform Act were invalid (Price, 1988). In addition, the court held that the Act did not breach substantive due course rights since the confinement was considered regulatory in nature, and not punitive. It added that the Congress’s intention of the Act was to prevent any danger that a victim may pose to the community, which, according to the Court, was reasonable. The statute ensured the protection of rights of the defendant by permitting the hearing to oppose the decision (. Besides, it limited the duration the defendant could be confined prior to trial. As such, the court held that the stipulations for pretrial imprisonment in the Bail Reform Act, fell within the limited exception of detention without trial or prior to trial.

PART 2

The eighth amendment does not allow for pretrial release. In relation to the federal courts’ interpretation of the constitution, individuals who are accused of non-capital crimes are entitled to the right to bail. On the other hand, individuals who are accused of capital offenses are not entitled to the right to bail (abanet.org). In the view of the right to bail, the eighth amendment is limited to the amount of bail that one has to pay. As such, this amendment influences the amount of bail that suspects have to pay. Payment that is considered “excessive” is often determined based on the circumstances that surround the case and cannot be granted a fixed amount for every offense.

PART 3

Denial of bail can be equated to the imposition of excessive bail. Denial of bail refers to the act of making it impossible for one to obtain a bail or hindering a suspect from acquiring a bail. When a court denies someone a bail, this person is always subjected to a situation in which he or she cannot do anything to bond the case. In like manner, when excessive bail is imposed on a suspect, such a suspect is often unable to raise payment that can meet the amount of bail charged. As such, this individual is subjected to the same position as the individual who has been denied bail.

PART 4

The grand jury may delegate the duties of determining whether there exists adequate proof for any criminal offence to proceed to trial. This duty can be conducted through the examination of proofs that are presented to jury by the prosecutor. As such, the jurors may then proceed to issue indictments or investigate the alleged offences. Besides, the grand jury can delegate the role of filling claims in the nature of an indictment, which is sealed against unaware criminal suspects who are detained later by surprise police visits. Furthermore, jurors can be delegated the function of using the court’s power to command a proof. However, they can also allow witnesses to testify (Gill, 2012). It is crucial to note that a suspect may file a motion, which seeks to squash a subpoena when it is considered unreasonable or oppressive. Thus, a suspect should ensure that there is not denial of abiding by the subpoena’s command without the filing of a squash motion. This is because such an action can lead to a civil detainment.