In re Harris, 16 Cal.5th 292

John Harris, Jr. was detained without bail under California Constitution article I, section 12(b), after being charged with violent felony offenses related to a rape case from the 1980s.
The prosecution's justification for detention relied heavily on unsworn evidentiary proffers, including police summaries, hearsay statements from ex-partners, and supporting documents, rather than live testimony or evidence admissible at trial.
Harris challenged the pretrial detention order through habeas corpus, arguing that only evidence admissible at a criminal trial could sustain a no-bail order under the state constitution and due process.
The Court of Appeal rejected Harris's evidence admissibility argument but remanded for failure to make findings about less restrictive alternatives as required by In re Humphrey.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether article I, section 12(b) requires only trial-admissible evidence at no-bail hearings and whether evidentiary proffers satisfy constitutional requirements.

Issue	Harris's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Must a pretrial no-bail order under art. I, §12(b) rest only on evidence admissible at trial?	Yes; only trial-admissible evidence can satisfy constitutional proof standards.	No; courts can consider reliable proffers, including hearsay, at bail hearings.	No; reliable proffers are permissible, but courts must ensure reliability.
Do due process principles prohibit reliance on unsworn proffers and hearsay at no-bail hearings?	Yes; reliance on informal evidence offends due process protections.	No; pretrial hearings traditionally rely on informal, speedy procedures, including proffers.	No; so long as procedures protect liberty interests and allow challenge, use of proffers does not violate due process.
Did the trial court correctly apply the standards for no-bail detention under article I, §12(b)?	No; court presumed truth of charges instead of evaluating evidence of guilt and risk.	Yes; court considered evidence submitted and detailed reasons for detention.	Remand required; court did not properly apply correct evidentiary and reliability standards or Humphrey alternatives analysis.
Does Evidence Code §300 or related statutes require bail hearings to use only admissible evidence?	Yes; Evidence Code should apply to restraint of liberty.	No; bail hearings are exceptions under several statutes enabling use of informal evidence.	No; statutes and prevailing practice allow use of hearsay and reports at bail hearings.

In re Humphrey, 11 Cal.5th 135 (Cal. 2021) (requiring courts to consider less restrictive alternatives to detention in bail decisions)
In re White, 9 Cal.5th 455 (Cal. 2020) (defining evidentiary standards for no-bail orders under Cal. Const., art. I, §12(b))
People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (distinguishing standard of proof from admissibility of evidence)
Van Atta v. Scott, 27 Cal.3d 424 (Cal. 1980) (recognizing the fundamental liberty interest at stake in pretrial detention)
Greenberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 319 (Cal. 1942) (disapproving prior standard regarding bail after indictment)