The following is Not Legal Advice.
Do Not Rely on This Information. It may not be current or accurate. For legal advice, consult an attorney.
Statutes checked against the official text current through the 2026 session; decisions through September 2026. Rule text reflects the Florida Supreme Court’s amendments effective July 1, 2025. Bond and pretrial detention law in Florida has changed substantially and repeatedly since 2023 — confirm the current rule and statute before relying on anything here.
← Bond and Pretrial Release in Florida
An Arthur hearing is the proceeding at which a person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment asks to be released on bail. It takes its name from State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980).
Where it comes from
Article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution begins: “Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime . . . shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions.”
Two things follow. Release on reasonable conditions is a right for everyone else. And even for those inside the exception, the constitution does not forbid release — it only removes the entitlement. Arthur resolved exactly that: the court retains discretion to grant bail even where the proof is evident and the presumption great.
Note that Arthur was decided in 1980 and quotes the older version of section 14. The provision was amended in 1982 to its current wording, which added the separate pretrial detention clause discussed on the pretrial detention page. Arthur’s framework survived the amendment intact.
The burden is on the State
Before Arthur, an indictment alone was enough to hold someone without bond, and the accused bore the burden of showing entitlement to release. Arthur reversed that. The State must come forward, and “[s]imply to present the indictment or information is not sufficient.” 390 So. 2d at 720.
How demanding is the standard? Higher than the standard for conviction. “The proof necessary to deny bond is greater than that required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also State ex rel. Van Eeghen v. Williams, 87 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1956); Russell v. State, 71 So. 27 (Fla. 1916).
A wrinkle worth knowing. Arthur also contains a sentence describing the State’s burden as presenting evidence which, “viewed in the light most favorable to the state, would be legally sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty.” That phrase sits awkwardly with a standard said to exceed proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Florida courts have treated it as dicta, and as the State conceded at oral argument in a 2026 case, no reported Florida decision has ever actually applied it at an Arthur hearing. Williams v. Green, No. 3D25-2545 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 2026) (collecting State v. Perry, 605 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Kirkland v. Fortune, 661 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Mininni v. Gillum, 477 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).
The hearing has two phases
| Phase one Burden: State | Is the proof of guilt evident or the presumption great? The State must present real evidence beyond the charging document — typically what the grand jury or state attorney relied on, which may come in as transcripts or affidavits. If the State fails, the defendant is entitled to release on reasonable conditions and the inquiry ends. |
| Phase two Burden: defendant | If the State carries phase one, bail is no longer a matter of right — but the court still has discretion. The burden shifts to the accused to show release is nonetheless appropriate. This is where likelihood of flight, ties to the community, and amenability to supervision belong. |
Phase two is a right, not a courtesy. In Gardner v. State, No. 4D2026-1494 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 26, 2026), the trial court announced its ruling before the defendant could call roughly a dozen witnesses on his amenability to release. The Fourth District granted habeas corpus: cutting the hearing short deprived the defendant of a full Arthur hearing. On remand he was entitled to present witnesses on all aspects of the bond question — including whether guilt is evident or the presumption great.
Timing — and what happens at first appearance
Standard practice in Florida is that a first appearance judge who finds probable cause on a capital or life offense orders the defendant held with no bond, leaving the defendant to set the matter for an Arthur hearing. That practice was challenged and upheld.
In Thourtman v. Junior, No. SC19-1182 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2022), the Florida Supreme Court held that article I, section 14 does not require a preliminary finding at first appearance that the proof is evident or the presumption great. On a finding of probable cause, the court may defer ruling on release and detain the defendant for a reasonable time to conduct a full Arthur hearing. The Court approved the Third District’s decision and disapproved the Fourth District’s contrary decisions in Gray v. State, 257 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), and Ysaza v. State, 222 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
The hearing is not automatic — it must be requested. As Justice Couriel put it concurring in Thourtman, a defendant may move for the hearing at any time before conviction. Thourtman himself got his four business days after he asked.
The remedy for an unlawful denial is a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court of appeal, which is how Gardner, Thourtman, and Williams all reached review.
What an Arthur hearing is not
It is not a pretrial detention hearing. Those arise under the second sentence of article I, section 14 and section 907.041, carry a different and lower threshold (“substantial probability”), and are now mandatory in a large class of cases. The two are frequently confused, and a court that imports one standard into the other commits reversible error. See Pretrial detention.