18 Sep 23

18 U.S.C. § 3146 – Failure to appear for court proceedings

| by

Last Updated on: 19th September 2023, 03:05 am

18 U.S.C. § 3146 – Failure to Appear for Court Proceedings

18 U.S.C. § 3146 is a federal statute that criminalizes the failure to appear before a court as required. Defendants released pending trial or appeal, witnesses, and others who defy court orders to appear before judicial proceedings face charges and penalties under this law.

Failure to appear – often referred to as “FTA” – disrupts the justice system and wastes court resources. This crime also enables further lawbreaking by allowing defendants to evade prosecution. § 3146 provides a tool for courts to enforce orders to appear and hold violators accountable.

Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 3146

Section 3146 falls under Chapter 207 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which covers “Release and Detention Pending Judicial Proceedings.” It applies to any person released pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or surrendering for service of sentence who “knowingly” fails to appear as required.

This statute also applies to those subpoenaed as material witnesses in criminal proceedings. Essentially, § 3146 makes it a separate federal crime for not showing up for court when legally obligated to appear.

The law categorizes violation based on the underlying offense:

  • Failure to appear for a felony trial or service of felony sentence – punishable by fine and/or maximum 3 years imprisonment
  • Failure to appear for a misdemeanor trial – punishable by fine and/or maximum 2 years imprisonment
  • Failure to appear as a material witness – punishable by fine and/or maximum 1 year imprisonment

These penalties are imposed consecutively with any sentence for the underlying crime. Defendants who miss court dates face further prosecution and jail time under § 3146 on top of punishment for other offenses.

Elements of a § 3146 Violation

For prosecutors to obtain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 3146, they must prove these key elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. The defendant was released pending trial or appeal, sentencing, or surrender for service of sentence
  2. The defendant was ordered to appear before a court or judicial officer as a condition of release
  3. The defendant failed to appear as ordered
  4. The failure to appear was knowing and willful, not accidental or unknowing

The court determines whether the failure to appear was “knowing” based on the circumstances. For example, a defendant who flees the jurisdiction or deliberately misses court dates would meet this standard. Simple mistakes typically don’t qualify as knowing violations.

Defenses to § 3146 Charges

Since § 3146 requires prosecutors to establish a “knowing” violation, defendants can raise several legal defenses by claiming the failure to appear was not intentional:

  • Lack of notice – Defendant was unaware of the court date or obligation to appear
  • Mistake – Defendant mixed up the date or misunderstood when to appear
  • Emergency – An unforeseen emergency prevented the defendant’s appearance
  • Incapacity – Defendant was physically or mentally unable to comply with the order

If any of these defenses raise reasonable doubt about whether the violation was “knowing,” the defendant should be acquitted of the § 3146 charge. However, they may still face consequences for the underlying case.

Relation to Bail Jumping

Failure to appear under § 3146 is closely related to the crime of bail jumping under 18 U.S.C. § 3146. Bail jumping applies specifically when a defendant fails to appear after being released on bail. It is essentially a specialized version of the broader § 3146 violation.

Prosecutors can choose whether to charge bail jumping or the general failure to appear offense. The maximum penalties are identical. The main difference is bail jumping requires proof the defendant’s release was conditioned on a bail bond.

Notable § 3146 Cases

Section 3146 gives courts an important tool to enforce appearance and punish those who defy orders. Here are some notable cases where this statute has been applied:

  • In U.S. v. Gamory, the defendant appealed his conviction under § 3146 for missing his trial date after being released on bail. The court upheld his 2-year sentence, finding his failure to appear was clearly “knowing.”
  • In U.S. v. Smegal, the court affirmed a § 3146 conviction for a defendant who fled prior to his sentencing hearing and assumed a false identity. This intentional flight constituted a “knowing” violation.
  • In U.S. v. Loud Hawk, defendants challenged their § 3146 convictions for not appearing while released pending appeal. The court held the statute did not violate due process rights.

These cases illustrate § 3146’s broad application to any deliberate failure to follow court appearance orders, whether pending trial, sentencing, or appeal.

Policy Considerations

Section 3146 raises important policy issues surrounding pretrial release and detention:

  • It creates incentives for released defendants to comply with court orders to appear.
  • Prosecutors must use discretion to avoid abusing the statute to punish good faith mistakes.
  • It ultimately supports pretrial release by ensuring accountability when conditions are violated.
  • Some critics argue it contributes to over-incarceration of pretrial defendants.

Overall, § 3146 represents a pragmatic measure to deter flight and enforce court attendance rules against those who intentionally violate them. However, it should be applied judiciously to avoid overcharging defendants or punishing good faith mistakes.Prosecutors should use discretion in bringing § 3146 charges only when the failure to appear seems clearly deliberate. Honest errors should not be treated as crimes. As one source notes, “Prosecutors must use discretion to avoid abusing the statute to punish good faith mistakes.”

At the same time, § 3146 charges should not be withheld when there is strong evidence a defendant intentionally evaded court. Letting flagrant violations go unpunished undermines the justice system. There is a balance to be struck between fairness and firm enforcement.Several measures could help ensure § 3146 is applied responsibly:

  • Judges providing clear warnings about § 3146 penalties before releasing defendants. This prevents unknowing violations. 
  • Law enforcement diligently attempting to notify defendants of court dates. Lack of notice should not cause violations. 
  • Prosecutors requiring a high standard of evidence before pursuing charges. Dubious cases should be declined. 
  • Courts considering defendants’ circumstances and compliance history when handling § 3146 cases. First-time mistakes should receive leniency. 

With prudent use by prosecutors and courts, § 3146 can deter flight without becoming a tool for abuse. Most defendants make efforts to appear if properly informed. For the minority who deliberately abscond, § 3146 provides reasonable punishment and protects the integrity of the courts.