delay or postponement in the proceeding, which
is not attributable to the accused, usually con-
stitutes a ground for bail—in some jurisdictions,
by absolute right; more frequently, at the dis-
cretion of the court.
In jurisdictions in which it is neither
proscribed nor regarded as an absolute right,
the grant of bail pending a motion for a new
trial, a review, or an appeal is also discretionary.
The grant of bail is then determined in light of
the probability of reversal, the nature of the
crime, the likelihood of the defendant’s escape,
and the character of the defendant.
The decision to grant or deny bail is
reviewable, but the scope of the review is
limited to whether the court abused its discre-
tion in its determination.
The amount of bail set is within the
discretion of the court. Once fixed, it should
not be modified, except for
GOOD CAUSE.An
increase cannot be authorized when the ARREST
WARRANT
specifies the amount of the bail. An
application for a change in bail is presented to
the court by a motion based on an
AFFIDAVIT (a
voluntary written statement of facts) confirmed
by the oath of the person making it. The
affidavit must be taken before a person autho-
rized to administer such an oath and must

and criminal actions when the defendant
“jumps bail” or “skips bail”—that is, deliberate-
ly fails to return to court on the specified date,
thereby forfeiting the amount of the bond. The
act of jumping bail is either a misdemeanor or a
felony, depending upon statute. The mandatory
appearance required in a bail arrangement
consists not merely of responding to the charge s
but also of attendance by the defendant at the
trial and
SENTENCING by the court. Appearance by
counsel ordinarily does not prevent a breach,
although under some statutes, where the offense
is a misdemeanor, such an appearance might be
sufficient.
When a bond is breached, the court enters a
judgment of
FORFEITURE of the bail. In some
jurisdictions, the judgment is appealable, but
only if the failure to comply with the conditions
of the bond was excusable and the state suffered
no loss of rights against the defendant.
A final judgment normally cannot be
entered on recognizance or bail bond without
additional proceedings. Such proceedings are
usually of a civil nature and follow the forfeiture
of bail. These proceedings can be commenced
by a
WRIT (a court order) of scire facias (a judicial
writ requiring the person against whom it is

mittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth
Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 2964, March 30, 2000.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Available at />judiciary/hju65062.000/hju65062_0f.htm; website home
page: (accessed July 5, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES
Due Process of Law; Eighth Amendment; Recognizance.
BAIL BOND
A written promise signed by a defendant or a
surety (one who promises to act in place of
another) to pay an amoun t fixed by a court
should the defendant named in the document fail
to appear in court for the designated criminal
proceeding at the date and time specified.
A bail bond is one method used to obtain
the release of a
DEFENDANT awai ting trial upon
criminal charges from the custody of law
enforcement officials. The defendant, the defen-
dant’s family and friends, or a professional bail
bond agent (or bail agent) executes a document
that promises to forfeit the sum of money
determined by the court to be commensurate
with the gravity of the alleged offense if the
defendant fails to return for the trial date.
Most defend ants are financially unable to
post their own bail, so they seek help from a bail
agent, who, for a nonrefundable fee of 10 to 20
percent of the amount of the bail, posts bail. A

death of the defendant or by his or her arrest,
detention, or imprisonment on another offense
in the same or different jurisdiction.
If a defendant fails to appear for trial on the
date specified in the bail bond, the court will
issue a
WARRANT for the defendant’s arrest for
“jumping bail,” and the amount of the bond
will be forfeited to the court. The bail agent is
generally authorized by statute to arrest the
defendant and bring him or her back for
criminal proceedings.
Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska,
and Oregon have enacted laws making it illegal
to post bail for profit, thereby outlawing the
occupation of bail bond agent.
A bail bond may be similarly used in cases
of civil arrest to prevent a defendant from
fleeing a jurisdiction to avoid
LITIGATION or
fraudulently concealing or disposing of assets in
order to become
JUDGMENT PROOF (incapable of
satisfying an award made against him or her if
the
PLAINTIFF is successful).
FURTHER READINGS
Berand, Laura, and Jean Montoya. 2002. Criminal Litigation
in Action. Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial
Advocacy.

By his mid-30s, he had won a string of victories
in shocking, nationally publicized cases, includ-
ing an important U.S. Supreme Court ruling on
PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. His books on law became
bestsellers, but controversy followed his criti-
cisms of the legal system and his sometimes
risky defense strategies. In 1994 he joined the
defense team in the trial of
O. J. SIMPSON for the
MURDER of Nicole Brown Simpson and her
friend Ronald Lyle Goldman.
Bailey might never have become a lawyer if
he had not dropped out of college. Born in the
Boston suburb of Waltham, Massachusetts, on
June 10, 1933, he was the so n of an advertising
man and a schoolteacher who founded a large
nursery school. In his teens, Bailey excelled at
Kimball Union Academy, a prep school, and
won a scholarship to attend Harvard in 1950.
His goal was to study English. Yet academia
could not hold him for long; he wanted
adventure. Dropping out of Harvard at the
end of his sophomore year, he enrolled in the
Navy flight-training program and eventually
joined the Marines, where he at first flew jet
fighters. Soon Bailey had switched gears and was
defending accused service members as part of
the legal staff at the Cherry Point Marine Corps
Air Station in North Carolina. Military life
would leave its mark on him. More than 40 years

◆◆
◆
◆
◆◆
1933 Born,
Waltham, Mass.
1952 Left Harvard to become
Navy (later Marine) fighter pilot
1960 Graduated
top of class from
Boston University
Law School
1966 Argued Sheppard case before Supreme Court;
Sheppard won acquittal on retrial
1974 Unsuccessful
defense of Patricia
Hearst in SLA trial
1971 The Defense Never Rests:
The Art of Cross-Examination published
1982 Beat drunk
driving charge with
help of Robert Shapiro
1994 O.J. Simpson charged with murder of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman
1995 Defense
team won
acquittal in O.J.
Simpson trial
2001 Florida Supreme
Court banned Bailey

charged the
DEFENDANT, George Edgerly, with
dismembering his wife and dumping the pieces
of her body in the Mer rimack River. Edgerly
had failed a lie detector test, making the case
difficult for the defense. Bailey was hired to help
turn the case around. When the lead attorney
suffered a heart attack, Bailey took over the case
and won an acquittal for the defendant. His
victory in the Edgerly case was the first of
several in high profile cases over the next
decade. Most notable was Bailey’s role in the
murder appeal of Dr.
SAMUEL H. SHEPPARD,who
had been convicted of second-degree murder in
the bludgeoning death of his wife, Marilyn
Sheppard. In 1966, Bailey helped convince the
U.S. Supreme Court that the trial judge had
erred in not shielding Sheppard from pretrial
publicity, thus denying him a fair trial—
establishing an important new standard for
defendants’ rights (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384
U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600). He
subsequently cleared Sheppard.
The Sheppard case launched Bailey’s career.
Not only was he now proven in court, he was
also attaining celebrity status. News magazines
extolled his skills at cross-examination, with Life
Magazine saying in 1967 that he was “methodi-
cal and relentless, boring in and tunneling

criminal defense attorneys needed several addi-
tional years of training; held that fewer frivolous
lawsuits would tie up the courts if the U.S. legal
system were to imitate the more rigorous British
one; and, on the lecture circuit, even suggested
that crime could be prevented by making it
illegal for people to carry more than $500 at a
time. He also simply liked the limelight: As the
equally famous attorney Melvin M. Belli
recalled, he and Bailey once stood at a bar
betting each other $5 over who w ould be
recognized first. Not all of Bailey’s pronounce-
ments met with praise; his outspokenness was
sometimes seen as grandstanding. Ironically, for
the attorney who had won Sheppard, he was
criticized by the Massachusetts
BAR ASSOCIATION
for saying too much outside of court, and in
1971 the Supreme Court of New Jersey barred
him for a year from practicing law there for
similar reasons.
In 1974 Bailey faced his Waterloo when he
unsuccessfully defended the publishing heiress
PATRICIA HEARST. Hearst had stunned U.S. citizens
when, after being kidnapped, she was photo-
graphed carrying an automatic weapon in a San
Francisco bank heist. On trial for
ROBBERY, she
claimed to have been brainwashed by her
abductors, a terrorist group known as the

public view for a time. Nevertheless, his reputation
as “flamboyant” and a “legend” persisted and he
continued to win cases. In 1982 he attracted
national attention again when he beat a drunk
driving charge with
LEGAL REPRESENTATION from his
friend,
ROBERT L. SHAPIRO.Baileycomplainedthat
the police had picked on him because he was
famous. Soonhe was campaigning publicly against
what he saw as police harassment, warning, “The
cops have decided to set some fierce public
examples of their new hard line, probably to scare
drivers into going easy on the booze.” He
promptly wrote a legal self-help book titled How
to Protect Yourself against Cops in California and
Other Strange Places, purporting to be a guide to
avoiding unfair drunk driving convictions.
In 1994 the trial of Simpson returned Bailey
to the spotlight when he and Shapiro were hired
for the defense team. However, before the trial
even began, the old friends engaged in a public
feud. Shapiro accused Bailey of trying to destroy
his credibility by leaking information to the press,
comparing Bailey to a snake and demanding his
removal from the case. In reply, Bailey criticized
his colleague’s “public outburst.” According to
Newsweek, Simpson admonished the two bicker-
ing attorneys, reminding them that his life was at
stake. The spat died down, and in March of 1995

with, it was good. Norman Mailer called me and
said it was flawless. So I feel good.”
In March of 1996 Bailey himself became the
subject of criminal prosecution after he and the
United States government had a disagreement
over who was entitled to millions of dollars of
stock formerly held by Claude Duboc, a drug
dealer and client of Bailey. The government
demanded
FORFEITURE of the stock, but Bailey said
a plea bargain he had negotiated with the
government on behalf of Duboc allowed Bailey
to keep it. When Bailey refused to surrender
2.3 million dollars to the federal district court in
Tallahassee, Florida, he was sentenced to six
months in jail for
CONTEMPT.InAugustof2000a
federal judge held Bailey in contempt of court for
failing to turn over the Duboc moneys. However,
the judge declined to jail or fine Bailey on the
grounds that federal prosecutors failed to properly
trace the moneyor to recover assets from Bailey. In
November of 2001 the Florida Supreme Court
issued a decision based on Bailey’s mishandling of
the Duboc stock funds that ordered Bailey to be
disbarred from practicing law in Florida. In April
of 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu-
setts issued a unanimous decision upholding the
decision to disbar Bailey on the grounds that he
deliberately broke ethics rules.

possession of, personal property by one person, the
bailor, into the hands of another, the bailee, for a
designated purpose upon which the parties have
agreed.
The term bailment is derived f rom the
French bailor, “to deliver.” It is generally
considered to be a contractual relationship
because the bailor and bailee, either expressly
or impliedly, bind themselves to act according to
particular terms. The bailee receives only control
or possession of the property while the bailor
retains the ownership interests in it. During the
specific period a bailment exists, the bailee’s
interest in the property is superior to that of all
others, including the bailor, unless the bailee
violates some term of the agreement. Once the
purpose for which the property has been
delivered has been accomplished, the property
will be returned to the bailor or otherwise
disposed of pursuant to the bailor’s directions.
A bailment is not the same as a sale, which is
an intentional transfer of ownership of
PERSONAL
PROPERTY
in exchange for something of value. A
bailment involves only a transfer of possession or
custody, not of ownership. A rental or lease of
personal property might be a bailment, depending
upon the agreement of the parties. A bailment is
created when a parking garage attendant, the

the bailee when both parties agree the prop erty
temporarily in the bailee’s custody is to be used
to his or her own advantage without giving
anything to the bailor in return. The loan of a
book from a library is a bailment for the sole
benefit of the bailee.
Elements
Three elements are generally necessary for the
existence of a bailment: delivery, acceptance,
and consideration.
Actual possession of or control over prop-
erty must be delivered to a bailee in order to
create a bailment. The delivery of actual
possession of an item allows the bailee to
accomplish his or her duties toward the
property without the interference of others.
Control over property is not necessarily the
A library patron’s use
of library books and
materials is an
example of a bailment
for the sole benefit of
the bailee.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
BAILMENT 473
same as physical custody of it but, rather, is a
type of constructive delivery. The bailor gives
the bailee the means of access to taking custody

A bailee who fails to do so may be held liable for
any damages incurred from his or her
NEGLIGENCE.
When a bailor receives the sole benefit from the
bailment, the bailee has a lesser duty to care for
the property and is financially responsible only if
he or she has been grossly negligent or has acted
in bad faith in taking care of the property. In
contrast, a bailee for whose sole benefit property
has been bailed must exercise extraordinary care
for the property. The bailee can use the property
only in the manner authorized by the terms of
the bailment. The bailee is liable for all injuries
to the property from failure to properly care for
or use it.
Once the purpose of the bailment has been
completed, the bailee usually must return the
property to the bailor, or account for it, de-
pending upon the terms of the contract. If,
through
NO FAULT of his or her own, the return of
the property is delayed or becomes impossible—
for example, when it is lost du ring the course
of the bailment—the bailee will not be held
liable for nondelivery on demand or when a
hurricane blows the property into the ocean.
In all other situations, however, the bailee will
be responsible for the tort of conversion for
unjustifiable failure to redeliver the property
as well as its unauthorized use.

at />aspx; website home page:
(accessed August 28, 2009).
Hall, Kermit L. 1996. A History of American Legal Culture:
Cases and Materials. 2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press.
CROSS REFERENCES
Bad Faith; Conversion; Damages; Negligence.
BAILOR
One who places control over or possession of
personal property in the hands of another, a
bailee, for its care, safekeeping, or use, in
accordance to the terms of a mutual agreement.
CROSS REFERENCE
Bailment.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
474 BAILOR
BAILOUT
See ECONOMIC BAILOUT.
BAIT AND SWITCH
A deceptive sales technique that involves advertis-
ing a low-priced item to attract customers to a
store, then persuading them to buy more expens ive
goods by failing to have a sufficient supply of the
advertised item on hand or by disparaging its
quality.
This practice is illegal in many states under
their
CONSUMER PROTECTION laws.
v
BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE

became a part of the Harlem Renaissance, a
▼▼
▼▼
Ella Josephine Baker 1903–1986
❖
❖
◆
◆◆◆◆◆◆
1993 561 African American
elected officials in
U.S. and state legislatures
1986 Died, New
York City
1932 Helped start nationwide
program for blacks to buy co-ops
1938 Joined
NAACP as
assistant
field
secretary
1939–45
World
War II
1954 Became
president of NYC
NAACP branch
1958 Appointed associate
director of SCLC
1960 Helped found SNCC;
beginning of sit-ins and

Ella Baker.
PHOTOGRAPH FROM/
BY THE NAACP
COLLECTION, PRINTS
AND PHOTOGRAPHS
DIVISION, LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE 475
period of high artistic achievement and greater
awareness of the possibilities for equality,
justice, and true freedom. Baker participated
in political discussions with many people, all
over New York City. She later recalled,
“Wherever there was a discussion, I’d go. It
didn’t matter if it was all men, and maybe I was
the only woman it didn’t matter.”
In the early days of the Great Depression,
Baker was working for a Harlem newspaper
along with George Samuel Schuyler, who was
well known in the black community for his
writing and who frequently railed against racial
prejudice. In one article, Schuyler proposed that
African Americans set up cooperatives to
purchase goods in larger quantities, at lower
prices than they could get otherwise. The
response to this article was so positive that
Schuyler decided to set up a cooperative on his
own with Baker’s help. Baker learned a great

branches for the organization. In that position,
she helped branch offices organize fund-raising
and membership drives and encouraged them
to become involved in local affairs to improve
the lot of black people in their communities.
Through her contact with the branch offices,
the organization be came aware of court cases
they could bring on behalf of blacks who were
denied their civil rights, such as access to public
institutions of higher education.
In 1954 Baker was named as president of the
New York City branch of the NAACP. In May
of that year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
landmark decision in
BROWN V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION
, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L.
Ed. 873. The Court ruled in Brown that
“separate but equal” schools for blacks and
whites were unconstitutional. As a result, school
districts in cities across the nation had to make
sure they were not violating the law. Based on
her experience raising her niece, Jackie, Baker
believed that New York City schools were
segregated, and she and other community
leaders pressured city hall to examine the school
system more closely for evidence of illegal
SEGREGATION. The next year, the mayor of New
York City asked Baker to join his newly created
Commission on School Integration.

a program designed to help local members
STRONG PEOPLE
DON
’T NEED STRONG
LEADERS
.
—ELLA BAKER
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
476 BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE
develop their leadership skills. In support of
Parks, leaders of Montgomery’s black commu-
nity, including Dr.
MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr.,
organized a boycott of the Montgo mery bus
system. The boycott lasted from December 1,
1955, until December 20, 1956, when blacks in
Montgomery heard that the U.S. Supreme
Court had ruled on December 17 that
Montgomery’s bus segregation laws were
unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S.
903, 77 S. Ct. 145, 1 L. Ed. 2d 114 [Nov. 13,
1956], reh’g denied, 352 U.S. 950, 77 S. Ct. 323, 1
L. Ed. 2d 245).
After the success of the
MONTGOMERY BUS
BOYCOTT
, Baker and others eventually convinced
King to call a meeting of southern black leaders
to plan to extend the battle. The meeting King
called was to take place in Atlanta on January

form of discrimination by using mass action
and nonviolent resistance.
One method of nonviolent resistance, the
sit-in, was used as early as 1942 by a civil rights
organization called the Congress of Racial
Equality (CORE) to protest racial discrimina-
tion. Not until 1960, however, were sit-ins
widely used as a form of protest. In February
1960, four black students sat at the lunch
counter in a Woolworth’s store in Greensboro,
North Carolina. They were refused service,
because it was a “whites-only” lunch counter,
but remained seated until the store closed for
the day. News of the incident spread quickly,
and area high school and college students joined
them in the following days. By the end of
March, students had staged sit-ins in many
other southern cities. Baker realized that
although the sit-ins w ere generating publicity
for the civil rights movement, their influence
would be greater if they were better coordinated,
so in April 1960 Baker organized a conference
for student civil rights activists at Shaw
University. More than 300 students attended
the meeting, which was the genesis of the
STUDENT NONVIOLENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE
(SNCC). Among those attending were Marion
Barry, future mayor and future city council
member of Washington, D.C., and Julian Bond,
future Georgia legislator.

of 1963 . The 1964 Civil Rights Act, as the bill
was called, was finally passed on July 2, 1964,
guaranteeing African Americans
EQUAL PROTECTION
in the use of hotels, restaurants, and other public
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE 477