Legal Service

Archive for April, 2009

All the obvious technological marvels aside, one of the greatest inventions for some individuals has been a bail bond. It is hard to imagine but once upon a time these did not exist.

If you were arrested, then you sat in jail until the judge sentenced you. Bail bonds are for the benefit of the people that have been arrested but cannot afford to sit in jail until the trial occurs.

Bail bond agents work on a pretty simple premise. A bail bond is a guarantee that you will show up to court. It works like this: the person is arrested, the judge decides what the bail will be and bail bond agents then pay a percentage to the court to allow the defendant to leave.

The bail agency is guaranteeing that the person will show up to court. If that does not happen, then trouble starts because they want to get their money back. If the defendant does not show up for the court appearance, then the money placed for bail is forfeited.

Bail bonds are not always used. There are times when the judge will release a defendant on his own recognizance. That means he will trust the person to show up to court and not flee before the court date.

The worse the crime, the less likely the judge will be to do this type of bail bond. He or she does not want the person to flee if the defendant thinks that he or she will be found guilty.

Bail bond agents act as a surety. They are a third person that agrees to be responsible. The usual arrangement is that the bail agency puts up a certain amount of money towards the total bond.

This is usually ten percent. Unlike posting a cash bond yourself, you will not get this ten percent back because it is the fee that the agency charges for getting you out of jail and putting up the guarantee that you will show for the trail or sentencing. If you put up a cash bond, then you will get the money back once you show up at court, minus the fees of course.

If you find yourself in need of bail bonds, either for yourself, a family member or a friend, then they work in the favor of the defendant. It allows them to get back to their lives while waiting for a backed-up court system to get to their case.

According to criminal law, crimes are offences against the social order. In common law jurisdictions, there is a legal fiction that crimes disturb the peace of the sovereign. Government officials, as agents of the sovereign, are responsible for the prosecution of offenders. Hence, the criminal law “plaintiff” is the sovereign, which in practical terms translates into the monarch or the people.

The major objective of criminal law is deterrence and punishment, while that of civil law is individual compensation. Criminal offences consist of two distinct elements; the physical act (the actus reus, guilty act) and the requisite mental state with which the act is done (the mens rea, guilty mind). For example, in murder the ‘actus reus is the unlawful killing of a person, while the ‘mens rea is malice aforethought (the intention to kill or cause grievous injury). The criminal law also details the defenses that defendants may bring to lessen or negate their liability (criminal responsibility) and specifies the punishment which may be inflicted. Criminal law neither requires a victim, nor a victim’s consent, to prosecute an offender. Furthermore, a criminal prosecution can occur over the objections of the victim and the consent of the victim is not a defense in most crimes.

Criminal law in most jurisdictions both in the common and civil law traditions is divided into two fields:

* Criminal procedure regulates the process for addressing violations of criminal law

* Substantive criminal law details the definition of, and punishments for, various crimes.

Criminal law distinguishes crimes from civil wrongs such as tort or breach of contract. Criminal law has been seen as a system of regulating the behavior of individuals and groups in relation to societal norms at large whereas civil law is aimed primarily at the relationship between private individuals and their rights and obligations under the law. Although many ancient legal systems did not clearly define a distinction between criminal and civil law, in England there was little difference until the codification of criminal law occurred in the late nineteenth century. In most U.S. law schools, the basic course in criminal law is based upon the English common criminal law of 1750 (with some minor American modifications like the clarification of mens rea in the Model Penal Code).

Crime is an inexcusable offence that may take different forms. For example, sedition, treason and espionage are crimes against the state where as murder, rape, kidnapping and assault are crimes against a person. Under criminal law, the government always files the suit where as in case of civil law a private party always files the suit.

Criminal law explains criminal offences and its elements and the punishment for the convicted offenders as an effective means of social control. The most important feature of the U.S. criminal law is its provision for common punishment. Certain criminal laws prescribe rules and regulations to observe and maintain higher standards of conduct. For example, helping the police in investigation when asked to do so and reporting to authorities immediately after a culprit is identified are examples of moral or ethical criminal laws.

According to the U.S. constitution there are certain crimes called strict liability crimes like drug abuse and weapon offences where the act itself is sufficient to punish the offender. Here the criminal law imposes liability without fail. In the U.S. crimes like conspiracy, terrorism and sexual harassment are dealt under inchoate crime laws where anyone aiding in planning and execution of the crime is subjected to the same penalties as a person who actually commits the crime. The crime could be the result of a direct cause or a legal cause or an intervening cause. Therefore, criminal law gives immense importance to the concept of causation.

Everybody wants the criminal to be punished for the crime he has committed. Penalties should be of such nature that the criminal would not dare repeat the act he has committed.

A Bench Warrant is a written order by a Judge directing law enforcement to arrest someone and bring them before the Court. Bench Warrants usually arise when someone is charged with a crime and then fails to appear at Court when directed. If you had a Bench Warrant issued against you, it’s not the end of the world but you will want to take care of the warrant as soon as possible. The process of getting rid of the warrant is called “Quashing the Warrant.”

There are several ways to get rid of a bench warrant: contacting the Court, having your attorney file a Motion to Quash, or sit back and do nothing. No matter which decision you make, you will eventually have to go before a Judge and ask them to remove the warrant.

Contacting the Court

Every Court will have a procedure in place for dealing with Bench Warrants. You can contact the Court, either by phone or in person, and ask them what you will need to do. Most courts will allow you to call their Clerk’s Office and ask about the procedure in your case. Before the Clerk’s Office will set a hearing for you, you will need to come down and make a personal appearance. Depending on the circumstances, they may require you to pay a fee or post a bond before they will set the hearing.

Remember that having a Court set a hearing to determine if a Bench Warrant will get quashed is NOT the same thing as actually having it quashed. The warrant will remain active until a Judge signs another order quashing it.

Motion to Quash

The easiest way to get rid of a Bench Warrant is to have your attorney do it for you. He or she can contact the Court and ask for a hearing before a Judge. This is generally accomplished by filing a Motion to Quash Bench Warrant. Although some courts will require a personal appearance by the Defendant before allowing any hearing to be set, most won’t.

Sit back and do nothing

Believe it or not, this is the most common way of dealing with a bench warrant. The downside of this method, of course, is that you have no control over when you get picked up. The only thing you can be sure of is that it will happen at the most inconvenient time. For example, if you are stopped for a minor driving offense and have kids in the car; who will take custody of the kids while you are on your way to jail?

What happens if the warrant is not quashed?

If the warrant is not quashed, then you will be taken into custody and you will remain there until either the case is finished or a Judge grants another Release Order.