Bail

PEDRO VASQUEZ VS. COMMONWEALTH
(March 2019)
[Bail]

 

Overview

This case considered the question of how to apply bail standards in cases where a defendant has been charged with murder in the first degree and the judge must decide whether the defendant should be admitted to bail, or held without bail to assure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings.

The defendant, Pedro Vasquez, was in pretrial detention since his arrest on January 5, 2015 for the murder of his girlfriend. A Superior Court judge ordered him to be held without right to bail, and the defendant’s four subsequent requests for admission to bail in the Superior Court were all denied. The defendant challenged the denial of his bail requests.

The defendant argues that the Commonwealth’s anticipated evidence against him was not strong enough to justify his pretrial detention without bail, given his local family ties and lack of past court defaults of meaningful prior convictions.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that a defendant charged with murder in the first degree has no right to bail, but may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the judge. The judge’s discretion should include consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offense and weigh the defendant’s risk of flight in light of the strength or weakness of the Commonwealth’s case and the potential penalty of a sentence to life in prison. The judge may also consider the defendant’s:

  • Family ties
  • Financial resources
  • Length of residence in the community
  • Character and mental condition
  • Record of convictions
  • Appearances at court proceedings
  • Any flight to avoid prosecution
  • Any failure to appear at any court proceedings

Pretrial detentions without bail is appropriate when a judge concludes, based on a preponderance of evidence and the relevant factors for bail, that it is necessary to assure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings. He or she must also consider the length of the defendant’s pretrial detention and the equities of the case, including the extent of the prosecution’s responsibility for the delay, and the strength of the Commonwealth’s case.

In this case, the Court concluded that the bail judge did not abuse his discretion or commit an error of law in denying the defendant’s bail request. It affirmed the denial of the defendant’s petition.

Background

Early in the morning of January 5, 2015, police officers responding to a 911 call discovered the body of a woman slumped over in the passenger seat of an SUV parked on the side of a road in Springfield, Massachusetts. The victim suffered a single gunshot wound to the head and was bleeding profusely. Attempts to revive her failed, and she was declared dead at the scene. The victim was later identified as the defendant’s girlfriend.

Detectives discovered that a home across the street from the crime scene maintained a video security system. The videotapes from that system show the SUV stopping and parking on the street. An argument between a man and woman in Spanish can be heard, coming from the vehicle. The woman demands that the man return her keys and threatens to call the police. A single gunshot can then be heard as the male leaves the vehicle and runs away.

Police interviewed the victim’s family and friends. Officers learned that the defendant and the victim had been romantically involved and had lived together for four or five years, along with the victim’s son. They also learned that there had been a history of domestic violence between the defendant and the victim in the relationship.

The victim’s family and friends identified the voices of the man and women in the video recording as the defendant and the victim. Based on this information, a warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest, and he was taken into custody later that evening. He was charged with murder in the first degree, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.

Judges of the Superior Court ultimately denied the defendant’s four subsequent requests for admission to bail after hearings were conducted reviewing these requests.

Discussion: Overview

The Court was tasked with reviewing the bail judge’s decision for abuse of discretion or error of law.

The Court began by establishing that the Court must allow “great deference” to any bail judge’s decision. It added that it would not overturn a decision for abuse of discretion merely because the Court would have reached a different result. It defined a discretionary decision as constituting an abuse of discretion where it can be concluded that the judge made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision, so that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives.

The defendant urged the Court to go further, asking it to conduct a de novo review of the Commonwealth’s evidence against him and, in particular, of the bail judge’s statement that the Commonwealth had a “strong case” against the defendant.

The Court affirmed that whether or not to grant bail to a defendant who has been charged with murder in the first degree is at the discretion of the bail judge.The Court traced this affirmation to both common and statutory law. Bail, it reasoned, is not a matter of right but is discretionary with the judge, who is to give due weight to the nature and the circumstances of the case.

Discussion: Factors to Be Considered in Exercising Discretion

The Court established that in exercising discretion to decide whether a person charged with murder in the first degree should be admitted to bail, a judge should be guided by the same factors that apply to bail decisions in other types of cases, although the relative weight given to these factors should be affected by the nature and gravity of the offense charged.

In addition to the previously listed factors, Massachusetts General Laws c. 276, § 57, second paragraph and c. 276, § 58 detail other factors judges must take into account in bail considerations.

On the issue of “flight”, the Court noted that a generic risk of flight should not be treated as automatically against the defendant. The Court added that bail should not be denied solely on the presumption that a defendant charged with murder in the first degree is not entitled to bail, without considering the particulars of the case in question, because this would deprive the defendant of an individualized bail decision based upon his or her specific circumstances.

The Court also noted that a judge should also consider the strength or weakness of the Commonwealth’s evidence against the defendant and the circumstances of the offense. The Court reasoned that this consideration is important for two reasons. First, the stronger the evidence, the greater the likelihood that the defendant will be convicted, and hence the greater the defendant’s incentive to flee. Second, the stronger the evidence, the less likely it is that an innocent defendant will be unfairly detained while awaiting trial.|

Discussion: Constitutional Considerations in the Exercise of Discretion

The Court noted that a judge’s exercise of bail discretion is also constrained by the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles 1, 10, and 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Pretrial detention must satisfy due process requirements because it curtails an individual’s fundamental right to liberty and freedom from physical restraint before he or she has been convicted of any crime. There are two prongs to due process analysis: substantive due process and procedural due process.

Under the substantive due process test, where a right deemed to be fundamental is involved, courts must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged procedure, and typically will uphold only those procedures that are narrowly tailored to further a legitimate and compelling governmental interest.

Procedural due process tests on the other hand test whether governmental action depriving a person of life, liberty, or property has been implemented in a fair manner. Procedural due process includes the right to be heard and the right to counsel.

All due process analysis of pretrial detention calls for examination of the length of detention, the extent of the prosecution’s responsibility for delay of the trial, the gravity of the charges, and the strength of evidence upon which detention was based.

Courts have ruled that the Commonwealth and its courts have a legitimate and compelling interest in assuring a defendant’s presence at trial. Courts have further held that the requirements of procedural due process were satisfied where the defendant was afforded a hearing and an opportunity to attack the strength of the Commonwealth’s case and to present arguments in favor of release, such as the defendant’s good character and ties to the community.

The Court also importantly noted that the necessary determination can be adequately presented and decided based on documents (i.e. police reports, witness statements, letters from employers and others, and probation records) and the representation of counsel, provided that the evidence is sufficiently reliable to avoid any significant risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty.

As previous case law has established, a defendant charged with murder in the first degree can be properly held without bail to assure his or her future appearance without violating due process. The defendant still retains the right to an evidentiary hearing where the defendant can testify, present witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses. Pretrial detention can only be authorized when a judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.

In setting the amount of bail, a judge must consider the defendant’s financial resources, although the judge is not required to set a bail amount that the defendant can afford to pay. When a bail order comes before a judge for reconsideration, the judge should consider the length of the defendant’s pretrial detention and the equities of the case.

Discussion: Analysis of the Challenged Bail Decisions

The defendant cited a number of factors for the Court’s consideration in determining if bail was appropriately denied. Defense counsel noted that the defendant had no prior record of convictions, except for the violation of a restraining order, to which he pleaded guilty. He also had no defaults on his record and had not attempted to flee before his arrest. He had family in Springfield and had lived in the United States his entire life as well.|

The defendant also argued that the visual and audio quality of the security videotape was so poor that it was difficult to identify the voice or image of the apparent perpetrator. Identifications, he asserted, were based on the preconceived belief that the defendant was responsible given that five other persons who knew the defendant and heard the videotape did not recognize the voice.

Defense counsel also stated the defendant had not attempted to flee and that his ex-wife, daughter, and neighbors all placed him as being at or near his home at the time of the crime.

The prosecutor countered by arguing that the defendant’s murder was effectively an execution, a point-blank gunshot to the back of the victim’s head. The victim also called the perpetrator “Pedro” in the recording. Fingerprint evidence on the vehicle was also documented. He also noted the defendant’s incentive to flee in light of the severe penalty for murder in the first degree. The defendant has also been the subject of two restraining orders, each arising out of his threats to kill women by shooting them.

On a Superior Court form, a judge checked boxes citing the following factors for his first decision denying bail:

  • “The nature and circumstances of the offense charged”
  • “The potential penalty the defendant faces”
  • “The defendant’s financial resources and employment record”
  • “The defendant’s record”
  • “The fact that the defendant’s alleged acts involve ‘abuse’ as defined in L. c. 209A, §1.”
  • “The defendant’s history of orders issued against him/her under the aforementioned sections.”
  • “The defendant’s status of being on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of sentence for any conviction.”

The judge checked a statement reciting that he had considered alternative non financial conditions and a lesser bail amount, but concluded that they would not be sufficient to assure the defendant’s appearance at future proceedings for the following reasons.

The judge noted the same factors for the second denial of bail.

The Court agreed that the bail judge’s December 2017 and May 2018 orders did not constitute an abuse of discretion or error of law. The Court reasoned that the bail judge’s orders made it clear that he had discretion to decide whether to admit the defendant to bail, and that he was exercising that discretion to deny the defendant’s bail requests based on the arguments and submissions presented to him.

The Court added that the judge’s orders also indicate that he appropriately considered the relevant bill factors in making that decision, and the factors he cited were all supported by the prosecutor’s presentation at the hearing. The May 2018 order, the Court specifically cited, showed that he specifically weighed the strength of the Commonwealth’s case and the prospect of the defendant’s continuing detention for another year.

The Court also made clear that the arguments weighing to the defendant’s favor were counterbalanced by other points presented by the prosecution, including the nature of the offense charged; the identifications of the defendant on the videotape by witnesses; the prior restraining orders taken out against him, his violation of one of those orders, and the fact that he was on probation at the time of the alleged offense; his lack of employment; and his connections to Puerto Rico.

Judgment

The Court ruled that it could not confirm that the bail judge made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to his decision. The Court accordingly concluded that the bail judge did not abuse his discretion.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Source: Pedro Vasquez vs. Commonwealth, SJC-12556

Pedro Vasquez vs. Commonwealth

Categories: Blog

sidebar_in_the_news

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.