You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myPalmBeachPost.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myPalmBeachPost.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myPalmBeachPost.com.

breaking news

UPDATE: 2 shot to death near Greenacres park; 3 schools locked down

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 v. 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.


Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Politics

That other time Donald Trump made a blockbuster tax proposal…
That other time Donald Trump made a blockbuster tax proposal…

Trump’s 1999 tax-hike plan as described by the New York Daily News. President Donald Trump on Wednesday proposed the outlines of a tax plan that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described in Trumpian terms as the “biggest tax cut” and “largest tax reform” in American history.
House Republicans look to Trump to fund Obamacare subsidies
House Republicans look to Trump to fund Obamacare subsidies

  Now that House Republicans are officially refusing to fund extra Obamacare subsidies, they're looking to the Trump administration to make the payments — despite having sued the Obama administration for doing just that.   House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., confirmed Wednesday morning that funding for the subsidies, which...
How Trump's tax plan could affect you
How Trump's tax plan could affect you

 The White House unveiled a broad outline Wednesday for a dramatically simpler tax code that could lead to lower tax bills for many ordinary taxpayers but also eliminate many of the tax deductions that Americans currently claim.   President Trump's plan, which did not include many details, could cut taxes for some middle and high-income...
Treasury secretary says Trump 'has no intention' of releasing tax returns
Treasury secretary says Trump 'has no intention' of releasing tax returns

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Wednesday that President Donald Trump "has no intention" of releasing his tax returns, which would show the public how much he would benefit personally from the administration's plan to overhaul the tax code.   At a White House news conference to roll out the administration's tax cut proposal...
Winners and losers in the Trump tax plan 
Winners and losers in the Trump tax plan 

The tax plan the Trump administration released Wednesday consists (so far) of a single page of bullet points.   If this were a more rounded plan, we could wait for the tax wonks at various think tanks to run it through their models and tell with some precision how it would affect people at different income levels and who would benefit from...
More Stories