Bail Jumping Prosecutions
🔍 What is Bail Jumping?
Bail jumping (also known as “failure to appear”) is the criminal offense committed when a person, after being released on bail, willfully fails to appear in court as required. It's a standalone crime, meaning you can be prosecuted for it in addition to the underlying charges.
⚖️ Legal Framework
1. Federal Law – 18 U.S.C. § 3146
Under federal law, bail jumping is called “Failure to Appear.” Penalties depend on the severity of the underlying offense:
If the underlying offense is a felony, the penalty is up to 10 years.
If it's a misdemeanor, the penalty is up to 1 year.
Penalties run consecutively to any sentence from the original offense.
2. State Laws
Most states have similar laws criminalizing bail jumping or failure to appear. The elements typically include:
The defendant was lawfully released on bail or recognizance.
The defendant had knowledge of the obligation to appear.
The defendant willfully failed to appear as required.
💥 Key Elements for Prosecution
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove:
Knowledge: The defendant knew of the court date.
Willfulness: The failure to appear was not due to accident, mistake, or uncontrollable circumstance (e.g., medical emergency).
Jurisdiction: The case must arise out of a lawful bail or release order.
📚 Case Law: Detailed Analysis of Notable Cases
1. United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2005)
Facts: Bourassa failed to appear for trial after being released on bond in a mail fraud case.
Defense: Claimed his attorney failed to notify him of the court date.
Outcome: Conviction upheld. Court found evidence that Bourassa knew of the date, including previous warnings and written notice.
Significance: Shows that actual notice is sufficient, and claims of miscommunication with counsel may not excuse non-appearance.
2. State v. Luna, 527 N.W.2d 641 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994)
Facts: Luna failed to appear at a felony sentencing hearing. He was later charged with felony bail jumping under Wisconsin law.
Defense: Claimed illness.
Outcome: Court ruled that illness must be serious and supported by evidence to be a valid excuse. Conviction upheld.
Significance: Demonstrated courts require credible, documented proof to excuse a missed court date.
3. United States v. Mendez, 63 F.3d 1483 (9th Cir. 1995)
Facts: Mendez, released on bail for drug charges, fled to another country and missed multiple court dates.
Defense: None offered; was captured years later.
Outcome: Convicted of bail jumping. Sentenced consecutively to the original drug conviction.
Significance: Flight from jurisdiction and long-term evasion significantly increase penalties and show willfulness.
4. People v. Wesley, 94 N.Y.2d 611 (N.Y. 2000)
Facts: Wesley failed to appear at a murder trial. He argued that threats against his life prevented his appearance.
Outcome: Court rejected the defense. Held that fear for personal safety is not a valid excuse unless there was an attempt to notify the court or seek protective measures.
Significance: Established that subjective fear is not a justification for bail jumping without proper legal action taken.
5. State v. Burnett, 93 P.3d 114 (Utah Ct. App. 2004)
Facts: Burnett was charged with misdemeanor bail jumping after not appearing in a DUI case. He claimed he forgot.
Outcome: Convicted. Court held that forgetfulness is not a legal defense to willful non-appearance.
Significance: Forgetting a court date is not considered a defense unless tied to a genuine, documented medical or cognitive condition.
6. United States v. Taitano, 442 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006)
Facts: Taitano was out on bail for embezzlement charges and failed to appear. He was later caught in another state under an alias.
Charges: Federal bail jumping under 18 U.S.C. § 3146.
Outcome: Convicted and received an additional 8 years to his original sentence.
Significance: Fleeing and using a false identity showed intent, aggravating the offense.
🔗 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Defense | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Bourassa (2005) | Federal (9th Cir.) | Claimed attorney didn’t notify | Miscommunication | Conviction upheld | Notice from court sufficient despite attorney issues |
| State v. Luna (1994) | Wisconsin | Failed to appear due to illness | Claimed sickness | Conviction upheld | Illness defense requires documentation |
| U.S. v. Mendez (1995) | Federal (9th Cir.) | Fled country, long delay | None | Convicted | Fleeing is clear evidence of willful non-appearance |
| People v. Wesley (2000) | New York | Skipped trial due to safety fears | Claimed threats | Convicted | Fear is no defense without court notification |
| State v. Burnett (2004) | Utah | Claimed forgetfulness | Forgot court date | Convicted | Forgetfulness is not a defense to bail jumping |
| U.S. v. Taitano (2006) | Federal (9th Cir.) | Used alias, left state | None | Convicted, +8 years | Use of false identity shows intent and increases sentence |
✅ Key Takeaways
Bail jumping is a separate crime—convictions lead to additional penalties.
Willfulness is the key element: the prosecution must prove the failure was intentional.
Common defenses fail if not supported by solid evidence (e.g., illness, fear, confusion).
Flight or use of aliases aggravates the offense.
State and federal courts consistently uphold these prosecutions, emphasizing the integrity of the judicial process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments