United States v. Jessup
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
757 F.2d 378 (1985)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (the act) established a rebuttable presumption for bail decisions that a person charged with a serious drug offense would likely flee before trial. In establishing the presumption, Congress specifically found that such persons were particular flight risks. This presumption was one of several factors the act directed magistrates to weigh in making bail decisions. Mark Jessup (defendant) was charged with a serious drug offense. The magistrate employed the act’s presumption to deny Jessup bail, stating that Jessup had not rebutted the presumption, while noting that the magistrate considered all circumstances under the act. Jessup challenged the denial on the ground that the presumption was unconstitutional.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
