Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, 1969. / "April 1969." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 87). Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (doctoral)--Philipp-Universität zu Marburg.

Pretrial release (PTR) is the permanent or temporary freedom from incarceration for criminal defendants awaiting adjudication of their cases in court. From Anglo Saxon times in England, people accused of non-capital crimes were generally permitted to remain free until judicial officials could hear the charges against them. In America, pretrial release has been advocated by the courts since the colonial era. The U. S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive, but leaves governments free to decide how bail laws are administered. The study briefly traces the historical developments of PTR up to the present time. The study then centers on the PTR process of three Oregon counties (Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill) and observes the decisions of judges, release assistance officers, and jailers in relation to the release outcomes for a study group (N=619) who were booked into jails of the three counties in 1993. Background data on defendants in the study include gender, race, the crimes for which they were arrested, criminal history, and the disposition of the current charges. Seventy-one percent of the defendants received PTR. Significant factors in the release outcome, as shown by logistic and multiple regression analyses, were probation violation status, felony in the current charge, narcotics offenses in the current charge, and charged with multiple offenses. Gender and race were not strong influences on the release outcome. Hispanic defendants (N = 108) in the study, however, were detained in jail longer than Whites (N=394). Hispanics were less likely than Whites to be released on the same day of arrest and served generally longer jail terms than Whites under similar sentences. Possible explanations are that Hispanics were more frequently charged with distributing narcotics and charged with multiple offenses. Implications suggest further studies on minorities in judicial and corrections settings. The study has applications in judicial and corrections policies on the early release of inmates, an important issue as jails become increasingly overcrowded.

The problem of jail overcrowding has forced corrections officials and jail administrators to examine ways in which to better manage available jail space. Pretrial release and detention policies have been a target of this examination as pretrial defendants typically account for 50% of a jail's population. Standards for pretrial release exist, but their administration varies by jurisdiction. The impact of jail overcrowding on pretrial release policies has been to decrease the time available to render a decision. Recent efforts to standardize pretrial release standards in Oregon have not addressed the issue of expediency. The current study examines pretrial misconduct (failure to appear in court and rearrest) with regard to information that is available to jail personnel and release office personnel at the time of arrest, with the specific intent to develop a predictive model of pretrial misconduct that will function as an initial risk assessment. Six hundred defendants arrested in Washington County, Oregon during 1991 served as subjects. The results indicated that 90.9% of all defendants arrested are released pending trial/ and that 22.7% of those released engaged in pretrial misconduct. The results of the loglinear model-building indicated that the variables prior failure-to-appears/ employment, and age were the best predictors of pretrial misconduct. The construction sample (n = 395) accurately predicted 94.5% of the observed pretrial misconduct compared to 90.7% for the validation sample (n = 150). The loglinear analysis yielded 16 typologies (based on the variables included in the model) by which defendants could be ranked as to their risk of pretrial misconduct. Spearman Rank Order coefficents for the construction and validation samples were .847 and .626 respectively. Data were also collected on detained subjects. A Chi-Square test using detained with released ?Ubjects by typology indicated that the categories are not independent (p < .01). Further examination indicated that the detained subjects did represent higher risks of pretrial misconduct as estimated by the typologies. The results also indicated that defendants currently on probation or parole were more likely to detained than other defendants. The results do not reject the assumptions by Sturz {1962), whose Manhattan Bail Project is the basis for pretrial release, that persons with strong ties to the community may pose the least risk of pretrial misconduct. The results also found sex and ethnic differences with regard to pretrial misconduct. The sex differences may have been confounded by age and crime type; however, the ethnic differences may reflect a systemic inability to communicate with Hispanic offenders.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Cincinnati, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-102). Also available online.

Thesis (LLM) -- Stellenbosch University, 2004. / Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: When evaluating a bail application, the court must take into consideration the interests of the accused against those of the community. The main goal of this assessment is to find a balance between said interests. While an application for bail is made at a stage where guilt has not been proven, it is of extreme importance that the court must not infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused which include the right to personal freedom and the presumption of innocence. In order to protect the rights of the bail applicant within the proper functioning of the legal system, it is important to determine the nature of bail proceedings. As shown in this thesis, bail proceedings are sui gelleris in nature, which means that a separate set of rules of the law of evidence is applicable to these proceedings. The object of this thesis is to identify the rules of law of evidence applicable to bail proceedings as well as to clarify the deviation from the normal rules of evidence which apply to the trial of the accused. In chapter one the purpose and nature of bail proceedings as well as the characteristics of accusatorial and inquisitorial systems, are discussed. Problem areas within the South African legal system with regards to bail applications are also highlighted in this chapter. In chapter two the application of the primary rules of the law of evidence with regards to bail proceedings are investigated as well as the admissibility of evidence pertaining to prior convictions of the applicant, opinion evidence and character evidence. In chapter three the admissibility of hearsay evidence at bail proceedings is discussed. The constitutionality of the privilege pertaining to the police docket is dealt with in chapter four. Chapter five deals with the infom1er's privilege. The requirements that have to be met in order to qualify for protection under the said privilege, are examined. Chapter six focuses on the privilege against self-incrimination and the manner In which it is applied in bail proceedings. The provisions of s 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the role of the presiding officer are also discussed in this chapter. Chapter seven focuses on the burden of proof in bail applications. Chapter eight contains a summary and recommendations. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: By die beoordeling van 'n borgaansoek moet die hof die be lange van die beskuldigde en die belange van die samelewing teen mekaar opweeg. Die doel van die betrokke verrigtinge is om 'n balans tussen hierdie belange te vind. Omdat borgtog ter sprake kom op 'n tydstip waar daar nog geen skuldigbevinding is nie, is dit van kardinale belang dat die hof ten aile tye moet waak teen die onregverdige inbreukmaking op die beskuldigde se fundamentele regte wat onder andere die reg op individuele vryheid en die vem10ede van onskuld insluit. Ten einde die regte van die borgaansoeker na behore te beskem1 sonder om die behoorlike funksionering van die regstelsel te belemmer, is dit belangrik om vas te stel wat die aard van borgverrigtinge is. Soos in hierdie tesis aangetoon word, is borgverrigtinge sui generis van aard. Dit het tot gevolg dat daar 'n aparte stel reels van die bewysreg bestaan wat op hierdie verrigtinge van toepassing is. In hierdie tesis word daar gepoog om die reels van die bewysreg wat op borgverrigtinge van toepassing is, te identifiseer en om die afwykings van die gewone bewysregreels wat op die verhoor van toepassing is, te verklaar. In hoofstuk een word die doel en aard van borgverrigtinge bespreek en word die kenmerke van die akkusatoriale en inkwisitoriale stelsels teen mekaar gestel. Die onduidelikhede oor die aard van borgverrigtinge in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg word ook aangeraak. In hoofstuk twee word die toepassing van die relevantheidsgrondreel by borgverrigtinge ondersoek, asook die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis oor die vorige veroordelings van die beskuldigde, opiniegetuienis en karaktergetuienis. Hoofstuk drie het betrekking op die toelaatbaarheid van hoorsegetuienis by borgverrigtinge. In hoofstuk vier word kwessies rakende dossierprivilegie behandel en die grondwetlikheid van sodanige privilegie, asook die toepassing daarvan, word van naderby beskou. In hoofstuk vyf word daar gefokus op die aanbrengersprivilegie. Die aard en toepassing van die privilegie asook die vereistes waaraan voldoen moet word alvorens daar op die betrokke privilegie gesteun kan word, word aangeraak. Hoofstuk ses fokus op die borgapplikant se privilegie teen selfinkriminasie. Die bepalings van a 60(11 B)(c) asook die rol van die voorsittende beampte word ook in hierdie hoofstuk aangespreek. Die sewende kwessie wat in verband met borgverrigtinge in die stu die ondersoek word, is die ligging van die bewyslas by sodanige verrigtinge. Dit word In hoofstuk sewe gedoen. Hoofstuk agt bevat 'n opsomming van sowel bevindings as aanbevelings.

Text in English / Every victim wants to see the perpetrator or offender of serious crimes convicted for their criminal actions. Each victim in a case is supported by witnesses and the community in wanting accused persons to be locked away behind bars. Having the accused persons locked away in prison is an achievement of every role player involved in the process of putting that accused where he/she belongs. The ultimate goal of investigation is to see successful bail opposing to ensure the safety of witnesses. There are accused who are released from custody by the court despite many attempts made by an investigator to keep that criminal in custody until trial. Victims and witnesses are struggling to get their offenders punished for the crimes they committed. It is the wish of every investigator of crime to satisfy every complainant in cases but it does not always happen, not because of any lack of skills, but because of many factors which come along with the successful prosecution in a case. Once the accused is released on bail, the chances and hopes of putting him/her back in prison are equal to the chances of getting him/her back in the community for good. This difficulty is caused by the fact that, once the accused is out on bail he/she might evade trial or the docket will be in and out of court for further evidence until the court declines to prosecute. / Criminal and Procedural Law / M.A. (Criminal Justice)