BISBEE - The county justice system has a new procedure for no-bond hearings for suspected illegal immigrants, and while some say the changes have brought improved efficiency, others believe the new process is unfair to defendants and could face legal challenges.

The changes come in response to an order from the Arizona Supreme Court that was issued July 3, a day after Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a bill meant to strengthen a new voter-approved law that denies bond to illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes.

According to the new guidelines, a judge must determine during a defendant's initial appearance if the "proof is evident or the presumption great" that the suspected illegal immigrant committed a serious offense. If so, the judge then uses a lower "probable cause" standard to decide if the person entered or remained in the United States illegally and can therefore be held without bond.

Previously, judges had to use the more demanding proof evident/presumption great standard to determine a defendant's immigration status, and the determination was made at an additional hearing held within 24 hours of the initial appearance.

The tight time frame and higher evidentiary standard often left prosecutors scrambling to gather the necessary evidence, since only the defense had the right to request a subsequent hearing. Now, both the prosecution and defense can file a motion for a follow-up hearing if they disagree with a judge's finding at the initial appearance and believe that they have new, relevant evidence.

"The new rules will assist the court, legal community, and law enforcement to determine a defendant's legal status in a timely manner," a press release from the Arizona Supreme Court states.

The changes to the law resulted in large part from complaints by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and State Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who alleged that illegal immigrant defendants were being set free after some judges ignored or half-heartedly implemented the no-bond rules.

James Conlogue, presiding criminal judge at Cochise County Superior Court, said the complaints were not applicable in this county, where judges had either ordered defendants held without bond or set an appropriately high bond amount.

"We're not seeing much of a problem here with people just getting turned loose right and left," Conlogue said. "Maricopa County is a completely different situation."

But both Conlogue and Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer said the new rules had benefited the local justice system by making the process of holding no-bond hearings more manageable and efficient.

Cochise County Legal Defender Mike Politi is less enthusiastic about the changes. "The new rule clearly works against the defense and benefits the prosecution, which is why the legislature and the court changed it," Politi said.

"I disagree that the new rule is 'procedurally better.' It is simply much easier for the prosecutor and the courts to comply and achieve a no bond decision. There is no benefit to defendants or defense counsel."

Rheinheimer believes the question of who benefits more from the changes is irrelevant.

The issue, he said, is whether the courts are properly interpreting the intent of the law, which was approved by 78 percent of Arizona voters last November as Proposition 100.

"I sincerely doubt that it will result in anyone who is in the country legally, whether a citizen or not, being treated as if he or she were in the country illegally," Rheinheimer said. "And, ultimately, that is the point of the hearings - to determine whether a suspect is in the country illegally and to enforce (a law) which the voters overwhelmingly approved."

But Politi believes that the newly revised law, with its lower probable-cause standard, could, in fact, deny bond to U.S. citizens charged with serious offenses. And Conlogue wondered if the standard, which is the same that police use in deciding whether to arrest someone, would hold up to challenges to its constitutionality.