Bail Forfeiture Factors Under Hyers
- August 29, 2013
- No comments
State v. Cain was a case in which the defendant, out on bail, was tracked and found out of state by the bondsman who then returned Cain to New Jersey to face prosecution. The court retained a portion of the defendant’s bail but did not show adequate reasons for doing so under the Hyers factors and the judiciary’s guidelines. The matter was reversed for adequate findings. State v. Thomas was a New Jersey case in which the law division vacated bail forfeitures by the city of South Amboy due to the judge’s failure to consider the guidelines or the Hyers factors and using a balancing test of sorts instead. The factors set forth in State v. Hyers are whether an applicant is a commercial bondsman; the surety’s supervision over the defendant; the surety’s efforts to ensure the return of the fugitive; the time elapsed between the missed court appearance and the return to court; the prejudice to the State because of the defendant’s absence, if any; expenses incurred by the State; and whether reimbursement of the expenses would adequately satisfy the interests of justice. If your friend or loved one is in jail, the first thing on their mind is getting out so they can go home, keep their job and meet with a lawyer to assist in their defense. Before paying whatever the court asks or paying a high fee to a bail bondsman, you should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to reduce or eliminate bail leaving your friend or family member with more funds to fight their case in court. For more information about bail, guns, drugs, assault or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.