A man accused of coordinating a brutal and viral street beating in Cincinnati has, for a second time, been granted release on bond by a judge. The resulting public outrage is understandable.
But this moment forces us to confront one of the most difficult and often unpopular principles of our constitutional order: the presumption of innocence and the strict limits on the government’s power to imprison a citizen before they have been convicted of a crime.
This is a powerful, real-world lesson in the constitutional balance between protecting the community and protecting the liberty of the individual.
A Community’s Outrage, A Judge’s Dilemma
The facts of the case present a stark conflict. Jermaine Mathews is facing serious state charges for felonious assault and rioting in connection with a violent downtown Cincinnati beatdown that was caught on video.
While out on bond for those charges, he was arrested again, this time on federal charges of trafficking fentanyl.
In a federal bond hearing this week, prosecutors argued he was a clear danger and should remain in custody. In response, his defense attorney argued he has no prior violent felony convictions and did not flee after posting his first bond. The judge, weighing these factors, granted bond, a decision prosecutors immediately appealed.
The Presumption of Innocence: The Eighth Amendment’s Command
To understand the judge’s decision, one must first understand the purpose of bail in our constitutional system. The Eighth Amendment protects against “excessive bail,” a right that is rooted in the foundational principle that every citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The purpose of bail is not to punish a defendant before a trial. It is simply to provide a financial guarantee that the accused will return to court to face the charges against them. To hold a person in jail before they have been convicted by a jury is a profound deprivation of liberty.
When Can a Judge Deny Bail?
This presumption of liberty, however, is not absolute. In the landmark 1987 Supreme Court case United States v. Salerno, the Court upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984. This law created a crucial exception: a judge can deny bail altogether and order a defendant held in pretrial detention…
… if the government proves with “clear and convincing evidence” that no conditions of release can “reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community.”
This is the high and specific legal bar that prosecutors in the Mathews case had to meet. The judge, after hearing arguments from both sides, was not persuaded that the government had met this extremely high standard. The immediate appeal from the prosecution shows just how difficult and contentious this judgment call is.
The public’s desire to keep a man accused of such violent and dangerous crimes behind bars is a natural and understandable impulse. But the Constitution forces our legal system to temper that impulse with a sober respect for individual liberty and the presumption of innocence.
The principles of pretrial liberty are a difficult, and at times deeply unsatisfying, guardrail. It is, however, a testament to the strength of our constitutional order that even in the face of a viral video and public outrage, our courts are still required to follow this demanding and principled process.