What must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption of a defendant's release on recognizance?

To successfully rebut the presumption of a defendant's release on recognizance, it is essential to demonstrate evidence of substantial risk. This means that there must be compelling reasons to believe that the defendant poses a significant danger to the community or is a flight risk if released. The legal principle behind this is that release on recognizance is preferred to encourage the presumption of innocence and support pretrial liberty.

In practical terms, this could involve evidence that indicates the defendant might not return for their court date or that their release could lead to further criminal activity. Courts typically weigh evidence such as prior offenses, the nature of the current charge, and potential threats to public safety to assess the risk level.

Factors like bad character, financial instability, or prior criminal history can contribute to the overall assessment, but they alone do not specifically address the substantial risk that needs to be established to justify denying pretrial release. The focus here is on the potential dangers or flight risks associated with the individual, which is central to making the decision about recognizance.