But some longtime opponents of cash bail said the new law would simply replace one system of pretrial detention with another, based on decisions by individual judges who will consider a set of prescribed “risk assessments” and then decide, with little possibility of appeal, whether a defendant is safe enough to release or must remain behind bars.

SB10 “cannot guarantee a substantial reduction in the number of Californians detained while awaiting trial, nor does it sufficiently address racial bias in pretrial decision-making,” said leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union in California, who had supported a version of the bill that gave judges less control over pretrial release.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said SB10 “handed the keys to the judges,” and he fears that the new law “will result in more people being locked up.” He also contended Cantil-Sakauye has a conflict of interest because the state Supreme Court is considering a constitutional challenge to the current cash-bail system.

It sounds to me like many who are currently eligible for pretrial release through posting bond will now be denied bond.

People held on capital charges would still not qualify for pretrial release. Nor would defendants with recent serious or violent felony convictions, those charged with domestic violence, or those who had been granted bail in the past and repeatedly failed to appear in court.

Others could be freed while awaiting trial, with monitoring, but their prospects for release would depend on the charges, their record, and the judge’s assessment of the risk they would pose.

More opposition:

“It gives tremendous discretion to judges to decide who to detain, and experience shows that this discretion is likely to be used in a way that over-predicts dangerousness and in a racially discriminatory manner,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Eliminating money bail is essential, but this is the wrong way to do it.”