If you’re arraigned for an alleged criminal offense in Massachusetts, the judge will give you the “bail warning.”
It goes something like this: “If you’re charged with a new crime during the pendency of this case, your bail can be revoked and you can be held for up to ninety days in the house of corrections.”
In other words, if you commit a new crime, a judge can throw you in jail until your initial case is resolved or for up to ninety 90 days–whichever comes first.
It is possible–in very limited cases–for a judge to vacate his bail order.
The authority for vacating a bail order is found in Commonwealth v. Pagan.
In that case, the SJC held that bail orders can be vacated:
- after at least 60 days have passed since the order was issued;
- a “manifest injustice” exists that justifies vacating the order;
- the order is vacated by the judge who made it.
Here are a few key quotes.
General rule:
[We conclude] generally that, when none of the charges against the defendant has been dismissed or has resulted in acquittal, and where no manifest injustice exists, a District Court judge may not, under G.L. c. 276, § 58, third par., vacate a bail revocation order.
General rule restated and expanded upon:
we conclude that reconsideration of a bail revocation order may be sought when a defendant (or the Commonwealth) can demonstrate that a manifest injustice will result if a bail revocation order is not revisited. Such reconsideration must be sought from the judge who entered the bail revocation order, and any change in the original revocation must be supported by reasons in writing.
Sixty-day requirement on all revocations:
We also conclude that once a bail revocation order enters, it is valid for a period of sixty days, and that, by mittimus returnable on the sixtieth day, the defendant shall be brought back to the court with jurisdiction over the charges to which the bail revocation order relates (the original pending charges) for a new bail hearing on those charges.
To read the full text of the opinion click here.