In State v. Ventura, 2008 WL 3090916 (N.J. August 5, 2008) the New Jersey Supreme Court considered two consolidated cases in which the defendants failed to appear but were located incarcerated in another jurisdiction.  The New Jersey authorities lodged detainers against the defendants, but in each case they were deported rather than returned to New Jersey.  The sureties argued that the forfeitures should be remitted based on the surety's efforts to monitor and recover the defendants and the fact that the government prevented the defendants' return.  The state argued that the defendants were still fugitives and no remission was appropriate.  The trial court denied the sureties' motions to remit the forfeited bail, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Guidelines published by the Administrative Office of the Courts and several Appellate Division decisions on remission of bail.  The Court drew a distinction between a defendant who was in compliance with his or her obligations up to the point of deportation and a defendant who was already a fugitive when deported.  The Court thought that in the later case the first starting point of the Guidelines applied and there was a presumption of no remission.  If the defendant was in compliance and was prevented from appearing by the act of the government, however, the Court thought that fact should be taken into account.  In the two cases before the Court, however, the defendants were already fugitives, the trial court had considered the proper factors, and the Court affirmed denial of the sureties' motions.