Bail Jumping While Behind Bars.

Some defendants are held in custody while they await trial. Others are released pending trial but are subjected to onerous bond conditions of release, the violation of which leads to "bail jumping" charges. And other defendants, paradoxically, are not released yet are still charged with bail jumping for violating conditions of release while inside the jail. How can a defendant who is not released be subjected to conditions of release? In other words, how can a defendant possibly be guilty of jumping bail from inside the jail? Of course, it is not logically possible some courts have even held that it is not legally possible. But other courts do apply conditions of release to in-custody defendants and will consequently uphold their convictions for bail jumping. Courts have developed four different theories to justify this outcome. This Article debunks those theories and then turns to contract law for some clarity. Criminal bond is, after all, a contract: the court agrees to release the defendant pending trial, and, in exchange, the defendant promises to post bail and follow the non-monetary bond conditions of release. And when disputes arise regarding contracts including bond contracts we turn to contract law principles for resolution. This Article identifies, explains, and applies four different contract law principles mutual assent, conditions precedent, illusory consideration, and frustration of purpose to this bail-jumping-while-in-custody paradox. All four doctrines lead to the inescapable (and commonsense) conclusion that bond conditions of release apply only to defendants who have been physically released from custody. This Article then provides litigation strategies for criminal defense lawyers whose clients are at risk of being charged with, or are actually charged with, bail jumping while behind bars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]