State v. Malik A. Pratt, 166 A.3d 600

Malik A. Pratt was arraigned on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges across several dockets (including aggravated domestic assault, attempted sexual assault, burglary, and possession of methamphetamine).
After an initial $10,000 secured bond (with $2,000 deposit) and release, Pratt was re-arrested on new charges; the court later set a secured appearance bond of $25,000 (with 10% deposit) for the October charges and reimposed the $10,000 bond for the August charges, ordered consecutive.
Pratt is indigent, transient, unemployed, has minimal family ties, and could not post the $25,000 bond; he remains in pretrial custody for lack of bail.
Pratt moved to review the $25,000 bail, arguing the amount was excessive because he lacks the ability to pay; the trial court found flight risk based on the number and seriousness of charges and prior violations of release.
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether a trial court must find a defendant presently able to pay set bail and whether setting bail the defendant cannot meet is constitutionally or statutorily forbidden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court must find defendant has ability to pay bail before setting amount	State: court may set bail reasonably calculated to secure appearance; need not find present ability to pay	Pratt: trial court must determine ability to pay; setting unaffordable bail is excessive and not least-restrictive	Court: No statutory or constitutional requirement to find present ability to pay; courts must consider finances but may set bail a defendant cannot meet if reasonably calculated to secure appearance
Whether $25,000 bail was excessive or an improper means to detain	State: bond was justified by flight risk, number/seriousness of charges, prior violations	Pratt: amount is excessive given indigency; effectively detains him pretrial	Court: bail decision supported by record; not imposed for punishment and not excessive under standard applied
Whether monetary bail may be used to protect the public	State: argued need to ensure appearance and public safety indirectly via securing appearance	Pratt: monetary bail used as de facto detention/punishment	Court: Monetary conditions may only assure appearance; cannot be used for punishment or public-protection purpose, but here no indication of improper motive
Standard for appellate review of bail orders	State: trial court discretion; review limited	Pratt: seeks reversal for abuse of discretion	Held: review for abuse of discretion; affirm if supported by proceedings below (13 V.S.A. § 7556(b))

Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (establishing that bail must reasonably assure appearance)
White v. United States, 330 F.2d 811 (Eighth Circuit: inability to pay alone does not make bail excessive)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (liberty is the norm; pretrial detention is limited exception)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation principles cited)
Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (Eighth Amendment’s bail clause applies to states)
State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433 (Vt. Ct. — bail need not be payable by defendant to be supported by record)
State v. Cardinal, 147 Vt. 461 (vacating unsupported high cash bail where record lacked evidence of flight risk)
State v. Wood, 157 Vt. 286 (noting unlawful use of unaffordable bail to secure incarceration)