Detention before Trial

The injustice of needless pretrial detention has been the focus of much attention in the last few years. Recently the Institute on the Operation of Pretrial Release Projects and the 1963 National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice have provided forums for the discussion of the effects of and alternatives to detention. Under the impetus of such forums and the pressure of jurisdictions seeking solutions to their pretrial problems, the body of literature on the early stages of the criminal legal process has grown rapidly. Detention Before Trial by Martin L. Friedland is an excellent addition to this literature. By tracing the court appearances of all 6,000 persons who were accused of offenses under Canada's federal criminal code and tried in the Toronto magistrates' courts over a six month period from the beginning of September, 1961 to the end of February, 1962, the study statistically documents the extent and nature of custody before trial in the Toronto magistrates' courts. These results are analyzed and presented in a careful and workmanlike manner. Professor Friedland clearly points out that the problems of pretrial detention with which many jurisdictions in the United States are wrestling are not unique to the American legal system. Although Toronto's criminal procedures differ from American procedures in some mechanical aspects, the unsavory details of detention are identical. In its essence the Toronto Study mirrors published findings of American pretrial practices. IProfessor Friedland's analysis of the relationship between custody before trial and case outcome, however, differs slightly from similar American work.' It is limited to a study of accused persons who have pleaded not guilty-a refinement that is possible only with a large number of cases. By isolating the defendants who pleaded not guilty, Professor Friedland could examine the relationship between custody before trial and conviction. Such a connection had been implied but not fully developed in earlier bail reports. Every table in Chapter 6 shows that accused persons in custody are more likely to be convicted than acquitted and are more likely to be sentenced to prison than released. In a footnote the author warns that statistical tests of significance show that the differences are not