吃瓜大本营

As a result of Georgia Senate Bill 63, thousands of people are being kept in jail pre-trial because they can鈥檛 afford to post bail, even when a judge believes the person should have been released until trial with no risk to the public. The ACLU鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project, along with ACLU-GA and the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed a class action lawsuit challenging SB63鈥檚 mandatory monetary bail provisions under the Georgia State Constitution.

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawai驶i held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai鈥榠 Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Hawai鈥榠 filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawai驶i should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court鈥檚 supervisory authority over lower courts.

Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice. In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee鈥檚 ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.

This case asks whether Georgia鈥檚 insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant鈥檚 mental condition 鈥渁t the time of鈥� the alleged crimes. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State鈥檚 interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.