Can defendants arraigned in federal court sometimes be &quot;out on bail&quot; secretly with no way for the public to know about or verify the bail?
<p>In <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/80782/16047">this answer to my Politics SE question *Is former president Trump &quot;out on bail&quot; as Chris Christie asserts? If so, were campaign funds used?</a> which ends:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bail is a particular type of bond in which the defendant submits an upfront payment that will be held until he returns to court, but there's no indication Trump was asked to post bail.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>there is a discussion about what &quot;but there's no indication&quot; means, including:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Isn't posting bail generally a matter of public knowledge? We often hear about person X was released wrt case Y for Z amount of money. Which would bolster this answer.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Generally yes, it's disclosed to the public. I just don't know if it's legally required to be disclosed, or whether the judge has discretion. Law is weird...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Chuckles that <em>Politics</em> SE would think <em>Law is weird</em> aside, this has piqued my curiosity.</p>
<p>Christie is a former US attorney with extensive experience in arraignments for corruption and similar crimes, and would be keenly aware of the difference between bond and bail. Further, the &quot;out on bail&quot; statement was made on national television amidst a discussion on truth and honesty in politics.</p>
<p>And yet I can't tell if the &quot;out on bail&quot; assertion is true, false, or currently unknowable with any certainty.</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Can defendants arraigned in federal court sometimes be &quot;out on bail&quot; secretly with no way for the public to know about or verify the bail?</p>

<p><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.13.1_2.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is one of the three Trump appearance bonds. As you can see, it is a personal recognizance bond, and not a dollar amount bond. He promises to appear, as required, and there is no money involved. There is a direct indication that he was not required to &quot;post bail&quot;, which is a stronger statement that &quot;no indication that he was&quot;.</p>

<p>It would be an extraordinary circumstance for a defendant to be out on bail or bond without that fact being part of the public record.</p>
<p>In general, the public has access to court records under both the First Amendment and under the common-law right of access to judicial records, and it is difficult for a party or a court to justify removing that access.</p>
<p>That right applies to bail records, as well, as we saw in the <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.22.0.pdf" rel="noreferrer">George Santos case</a>.</p>
<p>There, Santos was bailed out by family members, and he sought to have the bail records placed sealed to protect his family from harassment. The court granted that request, but reversed after news organizations objected and demanded access.</p>
<p>The court reviewing those motions didn't admit that sealing those records was wrong, but it did hold that because the concerns of harassment were purely speculative, the high-profile nature of the case, the specific concerns raised about the possibility of Santos exchanging official acts for bail money, and the House Ethics Committee's interest in the records demonstrated that any interest in having the records sealed was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.</p>
<p>More practically, though, it would be difficult to conceal the fact of bail, as the fact that a defendant is walking around after an indictment would be a pretty good indicator that bail was granted.</p>

federal-courts arrest politics bail arraignment