People ex rel. Shapiro v. Keeper of City Prison, 290 N.Y. 393 (1943)

While habeas corpus is available to challenge the legality of a bail denial, it does not allow a court of coordinate jurisdiction to conduct a de novo review of the discretionary decision to deny bail made by the original court.

Summary

Jacob Shapiro was indicted on multiple counts of extortion. The Court of General Sessions denied him bail based on his extensive criminal record and a prior instance of absconding while on bail. Shapiro’s brother then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, arguing Shapiro needed to be free to prepare his defense. The Supreme Court set bail at $100,000. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that while the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to inquire into the denial of bail, the Court of General Sessions had not abused its discretion. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding habeas corpus is available to test the legality of a bail denial, but it does not permit a second court to substitute its discretion for that of the original court.

Facts

Jacob Shapiro was charged with multiple counts of extortion in indictments issued in 1937 and 1940. He was not arraigned until 1942. At arraignment in the Court of General Sessions, he requested bail. The District Attorney opposed, citing Shapiro’s seven prior criminal convictions and his absconding while on bail in 1937, resulting in bail forfeiture. The General Sessions judge denied bail, citing Shapiro’s criminal history and the potential for a life sentence as a fourth felony offender.

Procedural History

1. Court of General Sessions: Denied bail.
2. Supreme Court (Special Term): Granted a writ of habeas corpus and set bail at $100,000.
3. Appellate Division: Reversed the Supreme Court’s order, dismissed the writ, and remanded the prisoner.
4. Court of Appeals: Affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the denial of bail in a non-capital felony case is a constitutional violation.
2. Whether the Supreme Court, in a habeas corpus proceeding, has the power to review a prior denial of bail by the Court of General Sessions and to exercise independent discretion in setting bail.

Holding

1. No, because the constitutional prohibition against “excessive bail” does not create a right to bail in all cases; the legislature may determine when bail is allowed as a matter of right or discretion.

2. No, because while the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to inquire into the legality of the denial of bail via habeas corpus, it cannot substitute its discretion for that of the original court unless the original denial was without reason or for reasons insufficient in law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals first addressed the constitutional question, reaffirming its holding in People ex rel. Fraser v. Britt that the prohibition against excessive bail does not mandate release on bail in all cases. The Court noted that New York statutes make bail a matter of right in misdemeanor cases but discretionary in felony cases. The Court stated, “[A] statute which makes it discretionary with a court to allow or refuse bail does not in itself offend against the Constitutional ban against the requiring of excessive bail.”

Turning to the habeas corpus issue, the Court acknowledged the importance of the writ in safeguarding liberty. The Court emphasized that habeas corpus is available to test the legality of the detention, meaning whether the denying court abused its discretion by denying bail without reason or for insufficient reasons. However, the Court explicitly rejected the notion that habeas corpus allows a second court to exercise independent discretion or conduct a de novo review. The Court reasoned that the legislature, by forbidding appeals from bail denials, did not intend to permit the equivalent of an appeal through habeas corpus.

The Court emphasized the limits on habeas review: “The traditional status and purpose of a writ of habeas corpus can be maintained in cases like this without making it a device for obtaining a new trial of a discretionary matter.” Since Shapiro’s petition sought a new trial on the bail issue, it was properly denied. The court also noted that successive applications for bail to different judges offend orderly procedure.

The Court clarified that the Supreme Court retains original jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail. However, this is distinct from the power to review a prior exercise of jurisdiction by another court. The court found “ample reason” for the denial of bail by the Court of General Sessions.