Bail often blamed for crime, but dismissals may be a much bigger problem

Imagine being robbed, assaulted, or having your car stolen, only to see your assailant back on the streets days later. Not because they were released on cashless bail or found innocent, but because procedural failures—like missing defense counsel, incomplete discovery, or an absent officer—led to the case being dismissed. While bail reform is often blamed for rising crime, systemic failures that result in case dismissals may pose a greater threat to public safety, leaving victims without justice and communities without accountability.

Dismissals play an important role in the criminal justice system by protecting against constitutional violations and wrongful convictions. They may occur before formal charges—referred to as declinations or rejections—as a result of evidentiary hearings, or after charges have been filed. Prosecutors may also use dismissals to manage caseloads, advance policy priorities, refer to diversion programs, or negotiate a plea deal. Dismissal rates vary, but a study of 15 jurisdictions found that, on average, prosecutors declined 28 percent of cases and dismissed another 28 percent after formal charges. This suggests that a majority of the individuals arrested were more likely to be released without a conviction.

When cases are dismissed on “technical” grounds, the impact can be significant. Victims may feel denied of justice, while defendants may avoid accountability. Dismissals can also weaken deterrence, signaling that similar offenses may go unpunished. Time and resources invested in investigations and prosecutions are wasted, and public trust in the system erodes.

Many people do not understand why or how individuals are released from custody, and tragic, high-profile cases can lead to misplaced blame on bail reform or so-called “soft-on-crime” prosecutors. However, bail decisions often include safeguards like risk assessments and court-imposed conditions to mitigate risk, with judges retaining authority to revoke release when necessary. Prosecutors also face oversight in their use of power through judicial review and voter recalls. Thus, while poorly implemented reforms sometimes play a role, deeper systemic issues are what often drive jails to release more individuals.

Noncompliance with discovery

Discovery is the process by which the prosecution provides evidence to the defense. Some states require prosecutors to disclose all evidence in their possession—including that held by affiliated agencies like law enforcement—while others mandate only material and exculpatory evidence. Discovery deadlines also vary, with some requiring prompt disclosure and others allowing prosecutors to share evidence just days before trial. Timely, complete discovery speeds up case resolution, ensuring justice for victims and preventing delays for the wrongly accused.

Overly burdensome discovery rules, under-resourced offices, or poor coordination between prosecutors and investigating agencies can all lead to case dismissals. New, stricter discovery deadlines in New York State have led to thousands of case dismissals simply because prosecutors could not comply in time.

A proper balance of fairness, efficiency, and practicality is required to address these issues. Solutions could include investment in staff, training, and technology, such as updated case management systems that automatically share reports with prosecutors.

Lack of a public defender

Guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the right to legal counsel ensures that every person, regardless of income, receives a fair defense. Public defenders represent the vast majority of criminal defendants, as 80 percent cannot afford private attorneys. A nationwide shortage of public defenders is straining the criminal justice system and undermining its ability to function effectively. Adequate public defense gives attorneys the time needed to handle each case properly by reducing continuances, preventing wrongful convictions, and upholding due process.

Judges recently dismissed hundreds of cases in Multnomah County, Oregon, because defendants lacked legal representation. This issue is not isolated—states like Wisconsin and Maine face similar challenges, with public defender shortages and excessive caseloads delaying cases and increasing the risk of dismissals.

Increasing funding for public defense and expanding recruitment and retention efforts to build a sustainable workforce are essential. Additionally, adjusting caseload limits, investing in technology, and expanding support staff can help public defenders focus on critical stages in each case.

Right to a speedy trial

The constitutional right to a speedy trial sets a time limit for prosecutors to bring a case to trial. These laws prevent prolonged detention and ensure timely case resolution. While the Constitution does not define “speedy,” many states have established their own deadlines. If cases exceed those timeframes, judges may be forced to release defendants from custody or dismiss the charges.  

After years of exceeding speedy trial deadlines, courts in San Francisco, California, had to dismiss hundreds of cases—even those with serious charges. Prosecutor shortages and growing caseloads forced judges to dismiss the cases, denying victims justice and allowing potentially guilty individuals to walk free. In states like South Carolina, where no set speedy-trial limits exist, defendants often wait years for their cases to reach trial.

Like public defenders, prosecutors need adequate funding, strategic recruitment and retention efforts, and advanced technology to improve case expediency. Courts should also prioritize effective calendar management and limit unnecessary continuances without cause.

Police failures to appear

Cases are often delayed or even dismissed when witnesses, including police officers, fail to appear in court. In key hearings—such as evidentiary hearings or trials—prosecutors rely on officer testimony to meet their burden of proof. When an officer fails to appear, the prosecution may be unable to establish probable cause or present necessary evidence, forcing the judge to dismiss the case.

Courts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dismissed hundreds of cases because officers and other witnesses failed to show up to testify, thereby undermining prosecutions and leaving victims without justice. Non-appearance often results from staffing shortages, budget constraints, poor scheduling coordination, or a lack of accountability within police departments. In some places, like Albuquerque, New Mexico, officers intentionally skip court to receive kickbacks. These absences waste judicial resources and erode public trust.

Law enforcement and prosecutors must improve communication to address this issue. Notifying officers when and why a case is dismissed can reinforce accountability and emphasize the impact of their court appearances on case outcomes. Police agencies should also implement policies—such as better scheduling and consequences for noncompliance—to ensure officers prioritize court appearances.

Additional considerations

Prosecutors also dismiss cases due to insufficient evidence or the need to prioritize caseloads. To prevent this, law enforcement should receive proper training and implement protocols to ensure thorough evidence collection, which helps prosecutors meet their burden of proof. Additionally, expanding diversion and deflection for low-level offenses allows quicker access to rehabilitative programs and frees up resources for serious cases, thereby reducing dismissals caused by overburdened courts.

Blaming bail reform as a primary culprit for crime distracts from the larger systemic issues that drive these outcomes. Case dismissals directly undermine justice by denying victims closure, letting guilty individuals escape accountability, and wasting significant public resources. Addressing the issues that cause dismissals could better protect public safety and rebuild public trust in the justice system.