## Facts

- Twelve defendants were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for conspiracy to violate the Smith Act.
- Initial bail amounts varied among defendants, but the district court later set a uniform bail of $50,000 for each defendant after the Government sought increased bail.
- Defendants moved to reduce bail as excessive under the Eighth Amendment and submitted uncontroverted information about finances, family ties, health, and criminal history.
- The Government’s showing consisted of a certified record that four individuals in an unrelated Smith Act case in another district had forfeited bail, without evidence connecting those individuals to these defendants.
- After the district court denied bail reduction, defendants filed habeas corpus petitions in the same district court challenging detention under excessive bail; the district court denied relief and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address questions affecting the administration of criminal justice.

## Issues

1. Whether a uniform $50,000 bail for each defendant, without individualized justification and substantially higher than customary amounts for comparable offenses, constituted excessive bail under the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether habeas corpus was an appropriate vehicle to challenge allegedly excessive bail when a motion to reduce bail in the criminal case, followed by appeal, was available.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that bail had not been fixed by proper methods because it was not grounded in individualized standards tied to assuring each defendant’s appearance.
- The Court ruled that the proper procedural route was a motion to reduce bail in the criminal proceeding, with an appeal as of right; denial of such a motion is an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- Because that remedy had not been exhausted, the Court directed that habeas relief be withheld.
- The Court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the habeas applications without prejudice so defendants could seek individualized bail determinations in the criminal case.

## Legal Principles

- Bail set before trial at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to assure the defendant’s presence is “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment.
- Bail must be determined on an individualized basis using standards relevant to assuring the presence of the particular defendant, consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(c).
- If unusually high bail is sought for a particular defendant, the justification must be supported by evidence directed to that defendant at a hearing.
- Collateral habeas corpus relief should generally be withheld when an adequate, timely remedy exists in the criminal proceeding (motion to reduce bail and appeal), and that remedy has not been used.

## Conclusion

The Court required individualized, evidence-based bail determinations tied to assuring appearance and limited initial resort to habeas corpus when a direct bail-reduction motion and appeal provide an adequate means to correct excessive bail.


Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951)