SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA REVERSES ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURT’S ORDER DENYING BAIL

Attorney Noel was retained after her client was denied bail by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Attorney Noel’s client was facing non-violent charges and had no history of violence. Attorney Noel filed a Petition for Specialized Review to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and alleged that the bail court violated Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in denying pre-trial release.

Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that “[a]ll prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses or for offenses for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or unless no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great…” This constitutional right to bail embodies three core tenets of our system of criminal justice: (a) the importance of the presumption of innocence; (b) the distaste for the imposition of sanctions prior to trial and conviction; and (c) the desire to give the accused the maximum opportunity to prepare his defense.

In 2021, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Commonwealth v. Talley, which interpreted the meaning of the phrase “when the proof is evident or presumption great” as it relates to the Commonwealth’s assertion that an accused should be denied bail because “no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of the community.” 

Talley concluded that, under Article I, Section 14, the “proof is evident or presumption great” burden imposes burdens of production and persuasion upon the Commonwealth.  Put differently, a bail court must evaluate the evidentiary weight of the “proof” or the “presumption.” “Proof is evident or presumption great” calls for a substantial quantity of legally competent evidence, meaning evidence that is admissible under either the evidentiary rules, or that is encompassed in the criminal rules addressing release criteria.  Accordingly, when the Commonwealth seeks to deny bail due to the alleged safety risk the accused poses to “any person and the community,” those qualitative standards demand that the Commonwealth demonstrates that it is substantially more likely than not that (1) the accused will harm someone if he is released and that (2) there is no condition of bail within the court's power that reasonably can prevent the defendant from inflicting that harm. 

Talley concluded that a bail court errs when it does not “perform the qualitative assessment” mandated by Article I, Section 14’s right-to-bail clause.  Where a bail court decides a motion for bail “without considering any testimony, exhibits, or other competent evidence, its decision to deny bail [is] erroneous.”  

In Attorney Noel’s client’s case, the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence in support of denial of bail, a fact the Commonwealth conceded before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the Superior Court swiftly entered an order reversing the bail court and directing it to enter reasonable bail.