COLUMBUS, Ohio — A bill introduced by Ohio Republicans would restrict nonprofits like The Bail Project from paying bail, punish offenders not showing up to court and allow the state to get involved if a judge sets bail "too low."
During a press conference on Wednesday morning, state Reps. D.J. Swearingen (R-Huron) and Jeff LaRe (Violet Township) introduced a new bail reform package, flanked by Holly, a victim of the Cincinnati brawl from the summer.
Holly, who spoke during the event, was injured in the fight that garnered nationwide attention last summer. She said the man arrested for punching her had been out on bail.
"Many of you saw the viral video, but what you did not see was the aftermath: the injuries, the hospital visits, the fear," she said.
In another case of someone getting out on bail and committing a crime, an advocate at the press conference brought up the Cleveland RTA shooting in December.
Just five days after posting bail, Donnie Allen was arrested for allegedly shooting and killing a man.
"What makes this really hard to accept is this was preventable," Holly said.
Swearingen agreed and said both of those crimes should not have happened.
"These low bail amounts, or just bail in general, can fail," he said. "And they fail because they don't adequately address that the individual receiving the bail shouldn't even be out in the first place."
The 27-page bill is meant to safeguard the community, while not violating a suspect's rights, the lawmakers added. It is nicknamed the 'Holly Act.'
The bill strengthens the consequences for repeat failures to appear. If a defendant doesn't show up in their current case or hasn't on two or more summons within the last five years, their required bond payment would go up from 10% to 25%.
"Personal recognizance is off the table," LaRe said.
Courts will also be required to confirm that the surety is financially responsible for the full amount of the bond before approving it. Once a bail bond is declared forfeited, a court may not reinstate the surety on that bond.
If a judge decides not to deny bail on a "serious offense," they must explain why.
The bill's major provision would limit nonprofits from assisting with bail payments in some cases.
"The legislation prohibits charitable bail organizations from posting bail for serious and violent offenses, including domestic violence," LaRe said.
Under the bill, nonprofits like The Bail Project would be forbidden from paying bail over $5,000.
The original bond for Allen, accused in the RTA shooting, was set at $15,000, but the judge reduced it to $5,000. The Bail Project paid 10% for his release.
The organization’s Jeremy Cherson wouldn't comment on that case, but said the vast majority of people they have helped follow the law.
"Anytime there's an unfortunate event, we're going to make sure that we understand what had taken place and, and take stock of what happened, but I would just point out that these are rare events," Cherson said. "We shouldn't be legislating from the fringes."
I asked the Republicans if they had data to back up how frequently a suspect gets out on bail and commits additional violent crimes. They said they were going to look into it, but didn't know.
Cash bail can be discriminatory, he said. Public defenders have routinely argued that the system makes it "guilty until proven wealthy," where a rich defendant can pay his way out of jail, versus someone with less money who would remain locked up, waiting for trial.
"It is not equal justice for all," Cherson said. "It's only justice for the wealthy."
He added that The Bail Project has shown that the underlying charge is not "necessarily an indicator" of whether somebody would or wouldn't return to court or pose a risk if they were released."
About 20% of their clients end up having their cases dismissed, Cherson added.
"That means that absent our intervention, they would have been unnecessarily incarcerated," he said.
But the lawmakers argued this would be select violent cases, ones that typically involve repeat offenders.
"How much vetting do you do before choosing to pay someone’s bail?" I asked Cherson.
"Well, I would first point out that the judge is the person that has the greatest information about a case, about a person's history, and they make a decision based on the idea that that person can pay it, and if they did pay it, they are eligible for release," Cherson responded. "We only intervene after a judge has made that determination based on all of the information that's available to them, and then we do a careful assessment of what is happening with that individual."
Sometimes, people do fall through the cracks, he acknowledged, but the majority don't.
"In Ohio, we've served over 2,700 people who've returned to court 95% of the time," he added. "That shows that it's just not a necessary incentive to keep the court system functioning the way that we hope it would, and to also ensure that there's accountability for people that are credibly accused of the crimes that they're accused of."
Cherson said the real way to fix the criminal justice system and promote public safety isn't to prevent The Bail Project from helping, but to tackle the issues of why someone may be incarcerated.
"They cycle in and out of jail, sometimes for nonviolent offenses, for misdemeanors that are often related to untreated mental illness or addiction or homelessness, and that kind of cycling isn't resolved by continued incarceration of them," Cherson said.
"You're saying that we shouldn't be legislating for the minority actors and instead we should look at the majority of people who are already following the law and are returning," I said to Cherson.
"I would say that accountability is important and that everybody needs to be and feel safe," he responded. "But we need to also account for people that are unnecessarily harmed when we apply legislation that is too severe and not necessarily needed to too wide a swath of people."
But more than just taking away the ability to pay, the bill also allows the attorney general to appeal judges’ decisions on bail if the state deems them too low.
"Do you think that this bill goes further against either freedom of speech with money or with judicial overreach?" I asked the lawmakers, to which Swearingen responded that this is a valid debate.
"The goal here is to allow the judges to identify key components to defendants that make them a threat to public safety; we want to work with them to do that," Swearingen said. "We're not trying to overreach or micromanage them in any way."
The bail discussion has been played out extensively in Ohio. Passed overwhelmingly in 2022, Issue 1 determined if judges should be required to consider public safety when setting bail amounts. The proposal amended the Constitution and required Ohio courts, when setting bail, to consider public safety, the person's criminal record, the likelihood the accused will return to court and any other factor the Ohio General Assembly decides. Swearingen and LaRe also led the charge for Issue 1.
RELATED: How Ohio's criminal justice system will be changed by Issue 1
House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) was unaware of the legislation when I asked him for his thoughts. He said that he doesn't know if there is an appetite for reform, and they are "certainly" not going to do anything with the bill before the end of the month. It's possible to see more from it in May or June, he said.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
