# Vito Finetti v. David Harris, Superintendent of Greenhaven Correctional Facility

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · September 12, 1979 · 609 F.2d 594

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466265

## Case

- **Full name:** Vito FINETTI, Petitioner-Appellee, v. David HARRIS, Superintendent of Greenhaven Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** September 12, 1979
- **Citations:** 609 F.2d 594; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11878
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** Waterman, Mansfield, Timbers
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466265

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that petitioner bears the burden of showing that no rational basis exists in the record for the denial of bail

## Opinion text

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur thoroughly in Parts I and II of Judge Timbers’ carefully considered opinion. With respect to Part III, I concur in the result.
With due respect for comity, the guarantees of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against arbitrary denial of bail could easily be nullified in many cases by a trial judge’s mere silence, which would render it impossible for any reviewing court to determine whether the denial was discriminatory or arbitrary in the absence of a stated reason. Hence I do not subscribe to the principle that the judge must be “presumed” to have acted rationally in every denial.
If the defendant’s constitutional rights are to mean anything, the judge should be required to state his reasons for denying bail, at least in cases where the record does not clearly show a rational basis for his action. The burden on the judge is minimal. A statement, even if only in a few words, would provide rudimentary protection against arbitrariness in the making of a basic decision involving human liberty.
In the present case I concur on the limited ground that the record furnishes ample reasons for denial of bail.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466265. Public record. Not legal advice.