Man who couldn’t afford bail set free

A homeless San Francisco man who spent the past 7½ months in jail while awaiting trial on burglary and theft charges has been freed by a federal judge, who said there was no legitimate reason to hold him indefinitely by setting bail he couldn’t afford.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge had set bail at $330,000 for James Reem in late July and reaffirmed that decision in December when the federal court questioned the amount. Judge Garrett Wong said Reem had failed to show up in court twice in previous cases and might flee if released without bail.

But Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s office said the only reason Reem hadn’t made previous court appearances was that he was being held in jail elsewhere. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Wong hadn’t articulated “a constitutional basis for detaining Reem pending trial,” and ordered his release. He was freed Tuesday.

The case is one of several legal challenges to California’s bail system, which has based the amount of money to get out of jail on the seriousness of the charges and a defendant’s criminal record without considering his or her ability to pay.

A state appeals court in San Francisco has ruled the system unconstitutional and prohibited judges from setting bail at unaffordable levels unless they have evidence that a defendant would be dangerous or likely to flee if released before trial. Local prosecutors have not appealed that ruling, but the California District Attorneys Association has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn it. State lawmakers, meanwhile, are considering legislation that would overhaul the system.

Reem is charged with home burglary and auto theft. Prosecutors say he has 19 previous criminal convictions and faces up to 22 years in prison if convicted. He has not yet gone to trial.

Breyer ruled in November that Reem was being held unconstitutionally because his bail was so high that it amounted to detention without trial. He put his order on hold to let Wong decide whether pretrial detention was necessary to protect the public or guarantee Reem’s future appearances in court.

On Monday, Breyer said the justifications offered by Wong and the prosecutors “lacked any indicia of reliability.” He said that if Reem were a rich man, with the same record, he “would have gone free for no reason other than his wealth” by paying bail.

Adachi’s office said Wednesday that the case “illustrates the reluctance of local judges to follow the law on bail.”