INMATES ON HOLD BURDEN JAILS

Fewer being let out while awaiting trial

Even as crime in California falls to its lowest levels in decades, a
ballooning population of prisoners awaiting trial is filling the state's
county jails to record levels.

Unsentenced inmates -- men and women whom judges have refused to release
until their cases go to trial and who cannot pay the bail to get out --
were once a minority in the state's jails. But in the past 10 years, their
ranks have swollen by 50 percent, surpassing those jailed for minor crimes,
according to statistics from the California Board of Corrections.

The population surge has accounted for nearly all the growth in county jail
populations statewide since the late '80s. It has pushed up the costs of
criminal justice and is prompting questions about how the courts are doing
their job.

In Santa Clara County, three of every five prisoners are unsentenced. In
Alameda County, it is seven of 10.

In San Mateo County, which has studied the problem extensively, a recent
analysis of the county's courts suggests that the jail crunch may be the
result of court decisions to release fewer people while their cases are
processed.

Judges in the Peninsula county said they were unaware of the trend and
argue they are just watching out for the public's safety. But the
plummeting release rates -- which have dropped by half since the early '90s
- -- are troubling county leaders who have been forced to scramble for money
to watch the bulging jail population.

``It's incredibly frustrating,'' said San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley.

``If I had sentenced prisoners, I might be able to do something with
them,'' he said, listing alternatives for sentenced inmates. ``With these
unsentenced prisoners, I have no options. . . . They have to stay in jail.''

This population shift has not been cheap for California's counties, many of
which have spent the past decade or more wrestling with serious
overcrowding in their jails.

Santa Clara County spent more than $65 million in the mid-'80s to build a
new jail after being placed under court order to reduce crowding. San Mateo
County completed its own new $35 million lockup in Redwood City four years
ago.

And just this fall, with that new jail filling to record levels primarily
as a result of unsentenced inmates, San Mateo County was forced to commit
$1.5 million more to hire sheriff's deputies to watch all the new inmates.

San Mateo County this decade has not experienced the same level of increase
as other counties around the state. There are still more sentenced than
unsentenced inmates in San Mateo County's jails, according to the
California Board of Corrections.

Similar trend

But San Mateo County is becoming more and more like its neighbors. While
the number of sentenced inmates in the county has declined steadily over
the past six years, the unsentenced population has increased by more than a
third.

Some county leaders, including the sheriff, lay responsibility for the
increases squarely with the courts, who decide daily how many unsentenced
prisoners will be locked up.

Every afternoon, on the fourth floor of the San Mateo County Hall of
Justice, a judge or commissioner reviews the day's crop of accused drug
users, unlicensed drivers and the occasional murderer or rapist, and with a
quick glance over each file, decides whether to set the accused free or to
set bail and send the inmate back to jail.

These decisions are usually made with information from the county bar
association's Release on Own Recognizance Program, which interviews inmates
before their ``in-custody hearings'' and recommends release for those who
meet certain criteria, such as residency in the county and stable employment.

Earlier this decade, about two-thirds of inmates who were recommended for
release would be set free by the court at the in-custody hearing. Today,
the release rate has dropped to 35 percent, according to an analysis
prepared for the county by the program.

Misdemeanor releases down

And, the own recognizance program found, the release rate for those accused
of misdemeanors has fallen most dramatically.

At the same time, crime in the county is down. In the past year, as the
number of unsentenced inmates in the county jail has increased most
noticeably, arrests for violent felonies and violent misdemeanors have
dropped, the program found.

``It's hard to understand why judges feel it's necessary to keep more
people in jail,'' said San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon, one of
several county leaders who are questioning the court's decisions.

Gordon and others are asking if judges are changing their approach to
releasing those charged but not convicted of crimes.

Members of the San Mateo County bench interviewed in recent weeks said they
were unaware of this trend. And most categorically dismissed the idea that
they are being tougher on unsentenced inmates.

``The judges who are doing the in-custody (hearings) are the same ones who
have been doing them for 10 years,'' said San Mateo County's presiding
judge, Judith Kozloski. ``I can't imagine there's been any change in the
way they look at things.''

No decision

Judge Richard Livermore, who started his career on the bench presiding over
in-custody hearings in the early '90s and is now presiding over them again,
said he knows of no decision to change the way the courts release prisoners.

Most judges instead suggest that it is those arrested who have changed.

``It used to be that if a person was arrested and then released, he would
come to court when he had to. Not anymore,'' said Judge Gregory Jensen, a
19-year veteran of the San Mateo County bench. ``People know that if you
get arrested and released and you don't show up for court, you'll never be
caught. . . . There's no more respect for the court.''

Jensen said the courts have been forced to keep people in jail so they
don't run away while their cases are being processed.

Others, including Commissioner Joseph Gruber, who presides over many of the
county's in-custody hearings, said the courts are seeing more unsentenced
inmates with long criminal records, who have violated their parole or who
have illegally immigrated to this country.

And, the 22-year veteran of the bench noted, as law enforcement has taken a
more aggressive approach to domestic violence, he is seeing more accused
spousal abusers. ``These are not people you want to just release back into
their homes,'' Gruber said.

There is some statistical evidence that some inmates at the in-custody
hearings are different. Police are indeed arresting more people for
domestic abuse. There are more inmates facing conviction under California's
``three strikes, you're out'' law.

The ``three strikes'' law is prompting more accused felons to take their
cases to trial and hence stay in jail longer, according to Bill Crout,
deputy director of the Board of Corrections. But Crout and others say the
law can only explain a portion of the growth statewide.

Beyond this, there are few indications that those being denied release by
the courts today are much different than those who were released five or
six years ago.

Released prisoners are in fact less likely to flee than they were earlier
this decade, statistics from the own recognizance program show. In 1993,
11.1 percent of those released on their own recognizance by the courts did
not return when scheduled. Last year, the failure to appear rate had
declined to 8.6 percent, according to the program.

It is unclear if those denied release are any more criminal today, but at
least in the past year while release rates have continued to decline, the
inmates appear to have become, if anything, less dangerous.

Last year, 11.5 percent of those who were recommended for release but
denied by the court were classified as higher-risk based on their criminal
history. This year, just 7.7 percent were so classified, according to the
own recognizance program.

Police may, as Gruber suggested, be arresting more people wanted for parole
violations or immigration problems, but these inmates would not affect the
release rates because the program does not recommend them for release.

Instead, county leaders are suggesting that the lower release rates most
likely reflect the bench's increasingly hard-line approach toward everyone.

``The courts are becoming more and more just like us,'' Horsley said.
``They hear the politicians talking tough about crime. They see the new
crime laws passed by the Legislature. . . . And they sense the mood of the
public.

Sensitive to critics

``They are stung by criticism of liberal judges who are soft on crime.
Nobody wants to be the judge who releases a drunk driver who then hits a
mother and child.''

This get-tough attitude has never pleased defense attorneys, but it is
increasingly worrying some county leaders, who say the tough line taken
toward unsentenced inmates is costing taxpayers millions while delivering
little added security.

``There's no question we should be tough on crime,'' said county Supervisor
Mike Nevin, a retired San Francisco police officer and one the court's
harshest critics. ``But we have a responsibility to talk about who's in our
jails and make sure we are locking up the right people.''

Some, including the sheriff, have suggested that inmates arrested for less
serious crimes could be put on electronic monitoring or some other form of
supervision while they await trial instead of being confined to the jail.
But those ideas have attracted little interest from the bench.

``You have to consider the safety of the community,'' Kozloski said. ``It
may be that (release) isn't granted as readily, but maybe that's as it
should be. . . . I think that's what the people want.''

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski