Cash Only Bail Violates Ohio Constitution
Cash Only Bail Violates Ohio Constitution
Eighth Amendment Rights
Is it Constitutional for a Court to Order Bail Requiring a 10 Percent
Cash Payment and To Deny a Surety Bond as Payment?
NO IT IS ILLEGAL BASED ON OHIO LAWS!
These counties are denying their citizens this right
Anthony Sylvester of Sly Bail Bonds appeared in the Ohio Supreme Court, represented by Patrick L. Cusma to argue the 8th amendment rights of Ohio citizens. Some courts, elected officials and county employee’s continue to deny Ohio citizens their constitutional rights under the 8th amendment .
Similar cases argued in the Ohio Supreme Court, cash only bail is unconstitutional under Section 9, Article I of the Ohio Constitution were already won in favor of upholding the laws of the United States and the State of Ohio.
-
- The Ohio Supreme Court, in Smith v. Leis (2005), 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-5125, specifically held that cash only bail is unconstitutional underSection 9, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and is not authorized by either Crim. R. 46 or RC § 2937.222.
-
- In 1993, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon that a trial court violated the constitutional right of a criminal defendant eligible for bail when it specified that the court would only accept the specified amount of bond in cash . The Jones Court cited the constitutional guarantee of bail “by sufficient sureties,” and pointed to language in Ohio CrimR.46 specifying that a defendant could meet the “sufficient sureties” requirement either by filing a bail bond secured by 10 percent of the amount set by the court, by pledging sufficient real property or securities as allowed by law or with “the deposit of cash, at the option of the defendant .”
-
- State, ex rel. Baker, v. Troutman (1990), 50 Ohio St. 3d 270 — (1) At p. 272: “First we reject respondents’ arguments that Baker has no action in habeas corpus. In State v Bevacqua (1946), 147 Ohio St. 20, 67 N.E. 2d 786, we held that habeas corpus is the proper method for securing relief for excessive pretrial bail under Section 9, Article I, Ohio Constitution.” Also see In re DeFronzo (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 271, 273; Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St. 2d 238, 257 N.E. 2d 397; Davenport v. Tehan (1970), 24 Ohio St. 2d 91; In re Gentry (1982), 7 Ohio App. 3d 143. (2) Bail form may not contain a provision conditioning acceptance of funds of their being subject to forfeit to cover fine and costs.
State ex rel. Anthony Sylvester, Sly Bail Bonds v. Tim Neal, Wayne County Clerk of Courts, Case no. 2012-1742; and State ex rel. Woodrow L. Fox, Woody Fox Bail Bonds v. Gary Walters, Licking County Clerk of Courts, et al., Case no. 2013-0364
Original Actions in Mandamus
ISSUES:
When a court orders bail requiring that 10 percent of the amount be paid in cash, is it unconstitutional, based on the Ohio Constitution’s guarantee that “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties,” for the court to prohibit a defendant from posting a surety bond for the full amount?
When a 10 percent bail bond is ordered, is it unconstitutional and in violation of Supreme Court precedent for a court to require a cash-only payment?
Case Nos. 2012-1742/2013-0364 State ex rel. Anthony Sylvester, Sly Bail Bonds v. Tim Neal, Wayne County Clerk of Courts
If you have been denied the right to use a bail bondsman in the state of Ohio or have been subject to a cash only bond please fill out our contact form and let us know! We will fight for you!