1. Fair Justice for All – Implementation of Recommendations
Hon. John Pelander, Vice Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer,
Administrative Office of the Courts

2. TASK FORCE ON FAIR JUSTICE FOR ALL From AO 2016-16, The purpose of the task force is to:
Recommend statutory, rule policy, process and procedure changes c.
Recommend best practices for making release decisions e.
Recommend educational programs b.
Recommend options for people who cannot pay (such as community restitution or time payments) d.
Review the practice of suspending driver’s license f.
Identify technological solutions, best practices

3. Principles of Fair Justice from AO 2016-163.
Court practices should help people comply with their court-imposed obligations, for example, by effectively alerting people to appearance dates, allowing deferred payment of
fines, and allowing community service as an alternative to financial sanctions. 1.
People should not be jailed pending the disposition of charges merely because they
are poor. Release decisions and conditions should protect public safety and ensure the defendant’s appearance at future proceedings. 4.
Sanctions such as fees and fines should be imposed in a manner that promotes, rather than impedes, compliance with the law, economic opportunity, and family stability. 2.
Arizona’s Constitution provides that “There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud.” Consistent with this constitutional provision, people should not be jailed for failing to pay fines or other court-assessed financial sanctions for reasons beyond their control.

4. Report and Recommendations Focus on Two Areas1.
Setting Release Conditions 2.
Financial Sanctions
Resulted in:
11 Principles
53 Recommendations
12 Educational Suggestions

5. People should not stay in jail just because they are poor.1.
Setting Release Conditions
People should not stay in jail just because they are poor.

6. Study of Detainees in Maricopa County*
Detaining low risk defendants, even just for a few days, is strongly correlated with higher rates of new criminal activity.
Compared to pretrial low risk defendants detained for 1 day, low risk defendants detained:
 2-3 days were 39% more likely to recidivate before trial
 4-7 days were 50% more likely to recidivate before trial
 8-14 days were 56% more likely to recidivate before trial
 days were 57% more likely to recidivate before trial
 31+ days were 74% more likely to recidivate before trial
*The Hidden Cost of Pretrial Detention, May 2016, Ryan Cotter, Ph.D.

7. Fair Justice for All – Bonds and Release Decisions
April 3, 2017 – Changes to Rule 6 and Rule 7 and Form 6 and Form 7
Rule 6.1 b - Right to Appointed Counsel. An indigent defendant shall is entitled to have an attorney appointed: to represent him or her
(1) If detained pretrial after misdemeanor criminal charges are filed;

8. Fair Justice for All – Bonds and Release Decisions
April 3, 2017 – Changes to Rule 6 and Rule 7 and Form 6 and Form 7
Rule 6.1 b - Right to Appointed Counsel. An indigent defendant shall is entitled to have an attorney appointed: to represent him or her
(1) If detained pretrial after misdemeanor criminal charges are filed;
Rule 7.1 b – “Unsecured bond. An "unsecured bond" is an undertaking, on a form approved by the Supreme Court, to pay to the clerk of the court a specified sum of money upon failure of a person released to comply with the conditions of the bond.”

9. Fair Justice for All – Bonds and Release Decisions
April 3, 2017 – Changes to Rule 6 and Rule 7 and Form 6 and Form 7
Rule 6.1 b - Right to Appointed Counsel. An indigent defendant shall is entitled to have an attorney appointed: to represent him or her
(1) If detained pretrial after misdemeanor criminal charges are filed;
Rule 7.1 b – “Unsecured bond. An "unsecured bond" is an undertaking, on a form approved by the Supreme Court, to pay to the clerk of the court a specified sum of money upon failure of a person released to comply with the conditions of the bond.”
Rule 7.3 b2 - “The court must not impose a monetary condition that results in unnecessary pretrial incarceration solely because the person is unable to pay the bond. If the court determines a monetary condition is necessary, the court must impose the least onerous of the types of bonds listed below in the lowest amount necessary to protect other persons or the community from an actual risk posed by the person or to secure the person’s appearance. Monetary conditions include:
(i) Unsecured bond;
(ii) Deposit bond;
(iii) Cash bond; or
(iv) Other type of secured bond.

10. Fair Justice for All – Bonds and Release Decisions, AO 2017-79
Administrative Order (Replacing Administrative Order No and Repealing Administrative Order No ) Presiding Judges Authority
Removed the language regarding criminal bond schedules. Civil Traffic cases will still have presumptive penalty schedules, presumptive fine schedules in criminal cases are being discouraged for use in setting release conditions.
County Presiding Judge:
9. Presiding judges shall assist the presiding justice of the peace and presiding municipal court judges in coordinating fine and deposit schedules.
Municipal Presiding Judge:
5 e. With the assistance of the presiding judge of the county, presiding municipal court judges shall establish fine and deposit schedules in coordination with the justices of the peace in the county.

11. Fair Justice for All – Bonds and Release Decisions
Petition R to modify Rules 4.2, 5.1, 5.4, 7.2, 7.4, 26.12, and 27.8, Rules of Criminal Procedure
Would amend the rules to provide options to courts when convicted defendants have failed to pay their monetary sanctions in a timely fashion and to make changes in bail determination proceedings for dangerous felony defendants.
Would modify the process in the use of ‘preventative detention’ in felony cases.

12. 2.
Financial Sanctions
Judges should impose sentences that are appropriate for the case and the individual.

13. Creating More Options– Determining Ability to Pay, AO 2017-81

17. 2.
Financial Sanctions
Judges must take into consideration the willfulness of those who fail to comply with court ordered financial obligations.

18. Improving Compliance – OSCs, AO 2017-81
A court may not incarcerate a defendant for nonpayment of a court-ordered legal financial obligation unless the court holds a hearing and makes one of the following findings:
The failure to pay was willful and not due to an inability to pay; or
The failure to pay was due to an intentional failure to make bona fide efforts to pay.

22. 2.
Financial Sanctions
Judges should implement policies and procedures that help individuals comply with court ordered financial obligations.

23. Improving Compliance– Facilitating Financial Obligations, AO 2017-80
1. Offering an installment payment process for those who are financially unable to pay their court-ordered financial obligations at the time they are imposed.
2. Accepting the following forms of payment for a court-ordered financial obligation:
a. Cash;
b. Credit and debit card;
c. Cashier’s check, certified check, or other financial institution generated fund transfer instrument; d. Money order.
In individual cases, forms of payment may be subject to reasonable restrictions and hold periods for clearance of funds.
3. Accepting, at the discretion of the court, as a form of payment:
a. Personal check;
b. Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) or electronic payment such as electronic check and direct deposit; c. Online transaction or electronic transaction conducted by telephone or internet.

24. Fair Justice for All – Facilitating Financial Obligations, AO 2017-80
4. Determining an individual’s ability to pay applicable at the original imposition of a financial obligation at any Order to Show Cause hearing that includes a financial obligation, and at any other appropriate time.
5. Mitigating, at the discretion of the judge, the financial penalty imposed at sentencing for those who have been determined unable to pay the full obligation amount normally imposed by providing:
a. Credit for time served in a detention facility;
b. Credit for the performance of community restitution; or
c. Reduction or waiver of the presumptive fine amount or other non-mandatory fees and
assessments for a financial hardship as permitted by law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the interest of the efficient administration of justice and good public service, the presiding judge of each court may provide by administrative order for court staff to implement a mitigation schedule adopted by the court. The order shall include a financial mitigation policy and a financial sanctions schedule for staff to follow based on the individual’s federal poverty level or other applicable ability to pay factors.

25. Creating More Options for Judges
By reducing or removing mandatory language within law and rule for both sentencing and setting release conditions the Fair Justice initiatives seek to expand the role of judicial discretion in those areas. C
Maximums
Maximum sentence and release conditions as allowed by law. B
Judicial Discretion
Judges having the ability to look at an individual case and impose sentences and release conditions that are appropriate for the case, the violation, the victim and the individual. A
Mandatory Restrictions
Imposed by rule or law, sentences or release conditions that are above the minimums established for most cases.
Minimums
Minimum sentences and release conditions as allowed by law.
Improving Compliance by Defendants
By expanding the use of payment plans and community restitution and by making it more convenient to remember and be able to pay court ordered financial obligations we seek to increase compliance with court orders.