Summary of Argument

On December 17, 2019, the Special Master submitted his Report and Proposed Interim Pretrial Reform plan (the “Plan”) to this Court recommending a series of improvements to the First Judicial District’s cash bail system. These recommended improvements were the result of negotiated agreements between and among the parties to this litigation as well as the President Judge of the First Judicial District, the President Judge of the Municipal Court, the Philadelphia District Attorney, and the Defender Association of Philadelphia. Notably absent from the recommendations, however, is any recognition or consideration of the serious challenges, risks, and needs faced by youth in the criminal justice system and, in particular, in bail proceedings. Amici therefore write separately to outline the grave harm faced by youth and to propose an alternative that considers what the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, that youth must be provided with distinctive procedural protections.

First, among the recommended improvements on which the parties reached agreement is the enforcement of the legal and constitutional requirement that any decision to impose monetary conditions on pretrial release must consider a defendant’s ability to pay. Youth as a class, however, do not have the financial resources to pay for bail. They have limited earning capacity and—until age 18— are required to attend school. 24 P.S. § 13-1327, 13-1326. Second, the deprivation of liberty caused by pretrial detention imposes unique harms on youth, who are at a heightened risk of pleading guilty to avoid the documented, greater likelihood of violence and injury in adult jail. Given these particular vulnerabilities, Amici recommend this Court adopt a presumption of indigence standard for youth in adult bail proceedings. While the Report and Plan provide enhanced protections that will also benefit youth, such as greater access to counsel which Amici also support, additional protections are necessary to ensure that all bailable youth’s constitutional right to pretrial liberty is protected.

Summary of Argument

On December 17, 2019, a court official, known as a Special Master, suggested changes to the way bail is used in the First Judicial District. These changes were agreed upon by many people involved in the justice system, including judges, lawyers, and the District Attorney. However, the suggestions didn't fully address the special problems and needs of young people involved in the criminal justice system.

This brief argues that young people face unique challenges in the bail system and need special protections.

First, the changes suggest that bail should only be set if the person can afford it. However, young people often lack the money to pay bail because they don't have jobs and are required to go to school until age 18.

Second, being held in jail before trial is particularly harmful to young people. They are more likely to face violence and injury in adult jails, making them more likely to plead guilty just to avoid being in jail.

This brief asks the court to assume that young people are too poor to afford bail. This means that they shouldn't be held in jail before trial unless there's a strong reason to believe they are dangerous.

While the proposed changes do include some good things, like better access to lawyers, more needs to be done to ensure young people's right to be free until their trial.

Summary of Argument

On December 17, 2019, the Special Master presented a report and suggested changes to the First Judicial District’s cash bail system. These recommendations came from discussions between the parties involved in the case, including judges, the District Attorney, and the Defender Association of Philadelphia. However, the report did not acknowledge the specific challenges and needs of young people in the criminal justice system, particularly in bail proceedings. Therefore, this brief emphasizes the unique harms faced by youth and proposes an alternative solution that considers the special protections required for minors in the legal system, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Firstly, one of the proposed improvements is ensuring that bail decisions consider a defendant's ability to pay. However, young people as a group generally lack the financial means to pay bail. They have limited income and are legally required to attend school until the age of 18. Secondly, being held in jail before trial poses unique risks for young people, who are more likely to face violence and injury in adult jails and may be pressured to plead guilty to avoid these dangers. Given these specific vulnerabilities, the brief recommends that the court establish a presumption of indigence for youth in adult bail proceedings. This means that courts should assume that young people cannot afford bail unless proven otherwise. While the report and proposed changes include beneficial measures for all defendants, such as increased access to legal representation, additional protections are necessary to guarantee the constitutional right to pretrial liberty for all bailable youth.

Summary of Argument

On December 17, 2019, a court official (the "Special Master") recommended a plan to improve the bail system in Philadelphia. This plan was created with input from different groups involved in the legal system, including judges, lawyers, and the District Attorney. However, the plan didn't fully consider the unique challenges and risks faced by young people in the criminal justice system, especially during bail hearings.

This group of friends of the court (called "Amici") want to highlight the serious problems young people face and propose an alternative solution. They believe the court should acknowledge that young people need special protections, as the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized.

First, the plan aims to ensure that bail decisions consider whether someone can afford to pay. But, young people often lack the financial resources to pay for bail. They can't earn a lot of money, and they're required to go to school until age 18. Second, being held in jail before trial is particularly harmful to young people. They are more likely to be victims of violence and injury in adult jails. This can make them more likely to plead guilty just to avoid jail.

Therefore, Amici recommend that the court adopt a rule that assumes young people are too poor to pay bail. This means that, unless there is a strong reason not to, they should be released from jail before trial. While the current plan has good things, like making it easier for young people to get lawyers, more needs to be done to ensure their right to freedom before trial is protected.

Summary of Argument

On December 17, 2019, a person who works for the court (called a "Special Master") made a plan to improve the bail system in Philadelphia. However, the laws did not think about what’s best for kids in trouble with the law. This plan needs to be changed to help kids get fair treatment.

Here’s why the plan needs to change:

• Kids don’t have money: The plan says that judges should consider if someone can afford bail. But most kids don’t have jobs or money to pay for bail. They need to go to school until they are 18 years old.

• Jail is bad for kids: It’s really hard for kids to be in jail while they wait for their court case. They are more likely to get hurt in jail. Many kids might say they are guilty even if they aren’t, just so they don’t have to be in jail.

So, the judge should make a rule that says most kids can’t afford bail. This will help make sure kids are treated fairly. This plan should also give kids more help from lawyers, which is a good thing!