Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
The court may owe some money...
Topic Started: Apr 21 2017, 08:06 AM (94 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-exonerated-fines-20170419-story.html

Supreme Court orders refunds for people whose criminal convictions are overturned



People who are freed from prison when their convictions are reversed deserve a refund of what they paid in fees, court costs and restitution, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

“They are entitled to be presumed innocent” once their convictions are thrown out, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the state “has zero claim” to their money.

The 7-1 decision orders the state of Colorado to refund several thousand dollars to two defendants, a woman and a man, who were convicted of sex crimes but had their convictions reversed. Shannon Nelson, who was charged with abusing her children, was acquitted in a retrial, and the prostitution-related charges against Louis Madden were dropped.

In both instances, the state insisted on keeping the restitution they had paid.

UCLA law professor Stuart Banner and the UCLA Supreme Court Clinic appealed the case of Nelson vs. Colorado to the high court last year, noting that Colorado was the only state that regularly refused to refund money taken from criminal defendants who were later exonerated.

Arguing the case in January, Banner said that as a matter of common sense and long legal tradition, people who were exonerated had a right to get back the money that was taken from them.

The state’s lawyer had raised eyebrows among the justices by arguing that the money in question was “the state’s money” because it was “obtained pursuant to a conviction.”

Only Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the state’s claim. “In my view, petitioners [Nelson and Madden] have not demonstrated that the defendants whose convictions have been reversed possess a substantive entitlement, under either state law or the Constitution, to recover money they paid to the state pursuant to their convictions.” Since the defendants were not wrongly deprived of their money, “Colorado is therefore not required to provide any process at all for the return of that money,” he said.

Colorado had adopted an Exoneration Act that allowed “an innocent person who was wrongly convicted” to file a civil suit to seek refunds, but only if they could prove they were innocent of the crime. Most states allowed exonerated people to file a motion with a trial judge seeking a refund.

Ginsburg said Colorado’s scheme violates the 14th Amendment’s protection for due process of law because it presumes the exonerated defendants are still guilty.

“After a conviction has been reversed, unless and until the defendant should be retried, he must be presumed innocent of that charge,” she said, quoting earlier rulings. “Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary extractions.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome in the Colorado case, but said it was “unnecessary for the court to issue a sweeping pronouncement on restitution.” The court noted that new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch took no part in the case.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Do the Durham courts owe the lax players anything for the monies they spent on their defense?

For the deprivation of the use of the monies they deposited for bail?



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

On a related subject, do courts continue to insist on high bail bonds because that benefits the bail bond business?

On a bail of $5000, the bondsman makes a profit of $500. On a bail of $50,000, the bondsman makes a profit of
$5000.

Is there a racket going on here?

(Note: This doesn't apply to the lax case, as the spectacularly high bonds -- higher than those for Durham dope king Frank Matthews -- were intended to create a sensation, and reinforce the idea of guilt. The defendants IIRC were not allowed
to use the services of bondsmen and put up only 10% of the bond; they had to put up the entire bond themselves.)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Just for the curious.

This is from New Hampshire, but I assume NC has similar rules for the legal profession:


Posted Image


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply