THE Office of the Public Defender and 17 other local attorneys oppose House Bill 23-33 which proposes to amend the law pertaining to a criminal defendant’s right to bail.
Authored by Rep. Marissa Flores, H.B. 23-33 or the Keisha King Bail Reform Act aims to protect the public and victims of crime from criminal defendants who violate the conditions of their release.
The measure would remove the right to be released on bail of a person under the influence of liquor and drugs, and allow a prosecutor to be heard before bail is granted. It would also prohibit the release of a person on bail for an offense committed while the person is released on bail or after an arrest for violation of a condition of probation that included an allegation of a new offense.
H.B. 23-33 cited the case of Keisha King who was kidnapped and shot on March 12, 2020, by Gordon Castro, a convicted felon with a substantial criminal history who was released on bail in two pending felony drug cases.
But according to Chief Public Defender Douglas W. Hartig, the measure is “an obstruction of justice bill designed to try to interfere with the discretionary duties of the court.”
In a letter to Flores, who chairs the House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations, Hartig said the comments from the Office of the Public Defender are supported by attorneys Robert Torres, Colin Thompson, Victorino Torres, Joey Patrick San Nicholas, Jack Torres, Oliver Manglona, Janet King, Richard Miller, Charity Hodson, Michael Evangelista, Bruce Berline, Vincent Torres, Joe W. McDoulett, Molly Dennert, Karie Comstock, Steve Pixley and Matthew Holley.
Hartig urged the Legislature not to pass the bill which, he said, cannot be reconciled with the current Rules of Criminal Procedures as it has no practical, statistical or legal justification.
He said it would unnecessarily increase the financial burden on CNMI taxpayers and the government in paying for pretrial detention.
Hartig added that the changes proposed by the bill would have no positive or practical impact on community safety. Instead, “it would simply serve to trample upon the rights of the CNMI citizens accused of crimes, ruin families, and cause unemployment, and may even cause the death of people accused of minor misdemeanors.”
Hartig said the bill “appears to be written without an understanding of the CNMI legal system.” Not only is the unconstitutionality of the bill clear, he added, but the proposed changes to statutes are in conflict with criminal rules of procedure and will be invalid.
It claims to protect the public from violent, repeat offenders, but Hartig said this is not what the bill states.
He described the bill as “disingenuous at best, deceiving at the most obvious.”
Hartig said the biggest problem with H.B. 23-33 is that “it takes away much of the discretion that the criminal court judges currently have when it comes to setting bail and bail conditions. This discretion is invaluable because it allows the judges to take into account the individual characteristics of each person coming before them as well as the unique nature of the different cases.”
He said requiring all requests for bail modification to be in written form creates an unnecessary delay and undue burden on an incarcerated person who is supposed to be presumed innocent. Under current practice, he said, motions to modify conditions of bail can be heard on the record at a hearing in a matter of minutes if it is simple and there is no objection.
But under H.B. 23-33, it could take days or weeks instead of minutes, while the accused person loses his job and cannot contribute to his family while sitting in jail, Hartig said.
He said H.B. 23-33 “stands for the notion of presumed guilty and locked until found not guilty.”
The Office of the Public Defender, he added, would be happy to work with the House JGO committee “to identify and propose evidence-based bills that can effectuate progress towards a fairer and just legal system and a safer community.”
