Directs courts to exonerate bail and order recognizance when no grand jury action has occurred for 45 days from arraignment, unless the people show good cause

This measure would amend sections 530.20 and 530.40 of the Criminal Procedure Law to require the granting, by a local criminal court or superior court, of a defendant's application for exoneration of bail, absent a showing of "good cause" why bail should not be exonerated, where a felony complaint has been pending for at least 45 days from the defendant's arraignment thereon with no action by the Grand Jury.

This measure would address the bail status of a defendant charged in a pending felony complaint who makes bail and may be required to return to court repeatedly, often over a period of several weeks or months, while awaiting Grand Jury action. As noted in a recent New York Law Journal article on the topic, a defendant in this situation can request that the criminal court exonerate his bail and return the money pending action of the Grand Jury and subsequent arraignment in a superior court if indicted. The local courts, however, are often reluctant to do so. Assistant district attorneys routinely claim they are within the People's statutory speedy trial time frame...and that the bail is neces- sary to ensure the defendant will return to court for his next scheduled appearance. It is interesting to note, however, that the similarly charged defendant, unable to make bail, must be released on his own recognizance 45 days after the initial arraignment in the local criminal court, if the district attorney has failed to obtain an indictment citing CPL section 190.80. This results in the rather perverse situation where one defendant must be released without bail while another defend- ant, facing the same charges and potential penalty, who made bail and returns for his court appearances regularly, is not entitled to have his bail funds returned.

MacNamara, Outside Counsel, Defendants' Limbo: FROM FELONY COMPLAINT TO GRAND JURY ACTION, NYLJ, June 27, 2003 at p.4, col. 4

Noting that a defendant who is able to raise sufficient money for bail often does so by borrowing from family members and friends, the author argues that "it is unreasonable that those individuals should have to suffer financially due to prosecutorial inaction or indifference. Forty-five days is more than a sufficient time period for the People to secure an indictment. If the People have not secured an indictment with- in 45 days of the initial court appearance, the incarcerated defendant should be released and bail should be exonerated for the defendant who was free on bail. This will encourage the People to critically evaluate their case at an early stage and either secure an indictment or offer a reasonable plea."

Id., at p.5, col.4

Our Advisory Committee agrees with this view. Where there is no action on a pending felony complaint for a period of 45 days from arraignment, a defendant who is able to make bail should, barring unusual circum- stances, be in no worse a position with respect to his or her bail status than a defendant charged with an identical offense who could not make bail. Accordingly, we have prepared this measure, which would address this discrepancy in the law by, in effect, creating a "presump- tion" in favor of bail exoneration after a 45-day period has elapsed with no Grand Jury action on a felony complaint. Specifically, the measure would add a new subdivision three to CPL section 530.20 to require the granting by a local criminal court of a defendant's applica- tion for exoneration of bail, absent a showing of "good cause" by the People why bail should not be exonerated, where the felony complaint, on the date of such application, has been pending in such court, with no action by the grand jury, for a period of at least 45 days from the defendant's arraignment thereon. The measure would make a similar amend- ment to CPL section 530.40, to allow the defendant's application for exoneration to be made in a superior court when the felony complaint is pending there.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact on the State, would take effect immediately.

Legislative history

Reintroduction from last session bill number A.4886.