The Effect of Attorney Type on Bail Decisions

• Author: Marian R. Williams
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403414562603
• Published date: 01 February 2017
• Date: 01 February 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2017, Vol. 28(1) 3 –17

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414562603

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

The Effect of Attorney

Type on Bail Decisions

Marian R. Williams1

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that defendants are entitled to effective

assistance of counsel. Despite this, many research studies and anecdotal evidence

suggest that defense counsel, particularly appointed counsel, struggles to provide

effective assistance, especially with regard to case outcomes. These studies suggest

that having appointed counsel negatively affects case outcomes, such as conviction

and sentencing, in that those with appointed counsel are more likely to be convicted

and/or sentenced to longer incarceration terms. Previous research has largely

ignored earlier stages of a case and the effect of type of counsel on these earlier

case outcomes. The current study examines the effect of counsel—public defender

versus retained—on bail decisions in Florida. Previous research has indicated that bail

decisions have an effect on the outcome of a case, so the importance of bail decisions

cannot be overlooked.

Keywords

courts, criminal court, bail decisions

The Eighth Amendment guarantees the right against excessive bail, but it does not

guarantee the right to be granted bail. Despite this, many states allow for the right to

bail, except in the case of capital crimes. Historically, bail decisions have been based

on issues such as the seriousness of the offense, the flight risk of the defendant, and

risk to the community (Hegreness, 2013). As such, judges make decisions every day

about whether defendants should be granted bail. Most defendants are given the oppor-

tunity to make bail, but are unable to secure their release due to financial constraints

(Kalhous & Meringolo, 2012). This is problematic, as defendants who are unable to

1Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Marian R. Williams, Appalachian State University, 2028 Anne Belk Hall, ASU Box 32107, Boone, NC

28607, USA.

Email: williamsmr4@appstate.edu

562603CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414562603Criminal Justice Policy ReviewWilliams

research-article2014