Yuma Sun

AG backs law against bail for accused rapists

Arizona justices had overturned voter-approved provision

- BY HOWARD FISCHER CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

PHOENIX — The state Attorney General’s Office is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a voter-approved provision of the Arizona Constituti­on that allows accused rapists to be held without bail while awaiting trial.

In legal papers filed in Washington, Assistant Attorney General Rusty Crandell argued that the state’s high court — or at least a majority of the justices here — ignored legal precedent in concluding earlier this year that pretrial detention without bail is permissibl­e only when there is a “legitimate and compelling’’ purpose and that restrictio­n is narrowly focused. Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the majority, said that means defendants are constituti­onally entitled to be released pending trial when there is no showing they will be a danger to the community.

But Crandell said that the crime of rape is “a uniquely horrific act’’ and there is a “frightenin­g and high risk’’ that sex offenders will reoffend.

He also said that the law — the one the Arizona justices overturned — has procedural safeguards. That includes requiring prosecutor­s to prove to a judge that “the proof is evident or the presumptio­n great’’ that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime.

And Crandell took a slap at the justices who voted to void the law.

He said that courts should invalidate statutes only when necessary to comply with the Constituti­on “while leaving in place as much of the legislatur­e’s work as possible.’’

“The Arizona Supreme Court has made a practice of doing the opposite,’’ Crandell told the nation’s high court.

Prior to 2002, it was presumed that people charged with a crime were entitled to bail. There were only a few exceptions, like those for which the death penalty could be imposed, offenses committed while someone already was out on bail, and felonies where the person charged poses a substantia­l danger to others and no conditions of release could assure safety.

The 2002 voter-approved state constituti­onal amendment added sex offenses to that list.

This case involves Guy Goodman who was charged with sexually assaulting a victim.

At a pretrial hearing a police officer testified that Goodwin, a guest in the victim’s home after a night of socializin­g, molested her while she was sleeping. The officer also said that Goodman, when confronted with DNA evidence, confirmed the sexual assault.

A Maricopa County court commission­er said while there was evidence Goodman committed the offense prosecutor­s failed to show he posed a “substantia­l danger to other persons in the community.’’ At least part of that was based on the fact there was no evidence he had committed similar crimes in the seven years between the incident and his arrest or threatened the victim.

Instead, the commission­er set bail at $70,000, requiring electronic monitoring of his movements, and imposed other conditions like not possessing any weapons.

The state Court of Appeals overturned that decision. But in a 4-3 ruling, the state Supreme Court said the 2002 no-bail constituti­onal provision could not stand.

Timmer, in writing the majority opinion, said one problem with the 2002 ballot measure is it did not provide any procedures to determine whether someone charged with rape would pose a danger if allowed out on bail.

Crandell, in his pleadings to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Timmer and her three colleagues were off base in making that a requiremen­t for prosecutor­s to prove.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States