The suspect in the LA rabbi attack has been released after a state court bail decision

The rabbi was on his way home from a seminary in the Orthodox Pico-Robertson section of Los Angeles in late April when he said he saw a pickup truck slow behind him.

The young father, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals, said the driver was seen following him on the Pico Boulevard road. Moments later, he said, the man jumped out of his van. Surveillance video showed the rabbi being pushed into the courtyard of the building and strangled.

“I was screaming for help at the top of my lungs,” said the rabbi. “In my mind I accept this is how it will end.”

As the attacker got into his van, he shouted “Free Palestine,” the rabbi said.

The suspect was arrested on May 19, and LA County prosecutors requested that he be held on $125,000 bail in connection with the hate crime charge, noting that he had a history of repeated violent crimes.

Instead, the judge released him without bail, saying a recent California Supreme Court case forced the court’s hand.

The Supreme Court’s April 30 decision, known as the Kowalczyk decision after a Bay Area man who sued that he was illegally held on $75,000 bail after allegedly using stolen credit cards to buy a $7 cheeseburger, is the second time in five years that the state’s highest court has ordered major state bail changes.

In 2021, the court ruled that Californians cannot be jailed before trial simply because they are too poor to pay. But critics of the bailout say little has changed as a result. Legal experts say the latest ruling is unique, banning cash bail in most cases, and imposing a stricter amount in others.

In the past month, motions called Kowalczyk have flooded California courts, forcing judges to release people they previously held on bail. Meanwhile, the courts are burdened with the added burden of reviewing bail decisions for dozens of defendants who have been incarcerated.

“This is one of the most consequential and shocking decisions I’ve seen since becoming DA,” said San Francisco Dist. He said. Brooke Jenkins, an outspoken critic of the decision, called the court’s move to limit bail “carte blanche” for California criminals.

Reformers say the change is legally necessary and socially wise. They point to decades of data showing pretrial detention causes widespread harm without reducing crime or increasing court appearances.

“There has been strong research across the country: Cash bail does absolutely nothing to protect the public,” said Salil Dudani, senior attorney for the Civil Rights Corps, a legal advocacy group.

But four weeks in, Jenkins and other prosecutors say many of those being released without bail are repeat offenders with long rap sheets for growing cars, guns and selling fentanyl.

“We had 29 cases booked as of this afternoon – we’re still filing two injunctions,” Jenkins said in an interview Wednesday morning.

Kowalczyk’s argument hinges on an obvious Golden State problem: the definition of “affordability.”

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote in a unanimous decision that “unless there is a compelling reason to incarcerate,” judges should “set bail at a level that the detainee can afford.”

“This amounts to a real right to bail in hundreds of thousands of cases, which may have previously resulted in arrest in California,” said Kellen R. Funk, a legal historian at Columbia Law School. “This will make California a team [leader] he is actually doing what his bail law says.”

The California Constitution outlines many crimes where bail can be denied, including rape, burglary and arson. But it also requires that almost everyone else be released at their discretion or given the opportunity to commit.

In fact, reformers say that bail amounts have been set too liberally, with judges given wide latitude to exercise discretion.

“Bail is just picking a number,” Funk said. “In the entire history of the bailout there has never been an attempt to fix the prices of the money. The total amount of the bonds is taken from the air.”

Defendants in California can already challenge those fees in bail-reduction hearings, but the state’s highest court justices said they want to fix that inconsistency and protect the rights of low-income defendants.

“A system in which a person’s right to liberty opens up financial resources endangers public safety and raises equal protection and due process concerns,” Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban wrote in concurrence.

But the new ruling does not define what constitutes “reasonably affordable” bail.

Jenkins was among the California prosecutors who urged the court not to change the status quo. He expressed frustration about the subjectivity that he says is now shaping the process.

“For someone who is homeless and unemployed it could be $1. For someone employed as a MUNI driver it could be $1,000,” Jenkins said. “It all has to do with what they represent in court.”

The bail decision comes at a time when many of the state’s key criminal reforms have been rolled back. A 2018 law that would have ended cash bail was repealed by a 2020 ballot measure. Four years later, a majority of California voters approved Proposition 36, reversing a 2014 change that turned nonviolent felonies into felonies.

Jenkins took office in 2022 after San Francisco voters recalled his progressive predecessor, Chesa Boudin, amid growing anger over property crime and perceived law enforcement. Across the Bay Bridge in Alameda County, reformist DA Pamela Price was recalled in 2024 and replaced by Ursula Jones Dickson, who quickly overturned many of Price’s signature policies. That same year, Los Angeles voters ousted George Gascón in favor of tough-on-crime challenger Nathan Hochman.

Even as violent crime across the country recedes into history, frustration over civil unrest, fentanyl-related deaths and the homeless movement continues, influencing the upcoming June 2 primary contests, including the LA mayoral and city attorney races.

The most recent Los Angeles County Quality of Life Index survey from UCLA shows a perception of a loss of public safety as property crime has declined modestly over the same period.

Reformists blame politicians for the cuts.

“There is endless misinformation about the prevalence of those types of crimes and the remedy,” said Dudani, of the Civil Rights Corps. a lawyer.

Politicians blamed law enforcement.

“Nobody knows what’s going on in these courts,” Jenkins said. “No one knows that the judges in their ivory towers who do not live in the communities affected by crime are issuing these decisions.”

Crime victims like the Pico-Robertson rabbi say they just want to feel safe. The defendant in his case pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

“It’s a struggle,” said the rabbi. “A lot of people are worried. No one wants to take chances.”