Post by addisona on Jan 10, 2017 15:21:00 GMT
High court questions why refunds aren’t automatic when a Colo. conviction is overturned
Virtually everywhere in America, the Supreme Court was told Monday, a criminal defendant who has paid fines and other penalties as a consequence of being convicted gets the money back if the verdict is overturned.
The exception is Colorado, where a freed defendant must file suit and prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to request a refund.
But perhaps not for long.
Practically every member of the court who spoke at Monday’s oral argument seemed to find something to question about Colorado’s procedure, which a lawyer for two defendants said stood the normal burden of proof on its head.
The process is “tantamount to charging people money for the privilege of trying them unlawfully,” said Stuart Banner, a UCLA law professor.
Such was the barrage of questions for Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger that Justice Stephen G. Breyer at one point apologized. “I mean, you — I grant you have a tough side of this argument,” Breyer said. “It doesn’t seem very fair.”
Yarger stood his ground, saying that because the fines were valid at the time they were levied, the funds belong to the state. And the state has discretion on how to refund them — or whether to refund them at all.
Justice Elena Kagan told Yarger to put aside the legalities and describe “just in common-sensical terms, why is this the state’s money?”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that under Colorado’s reasoning, the state could mandate that “everybody who is convicted owes the state $10,000” and that no one gets the money back, even if the conviction is overturned.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/high-court-questions-why-refunds-arent-automatic-when-a-colo-conviction-is-overturned/2017/01/09/e4418c6c-d69f-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.0de303e0f1c8
Virtually everywhere in America, the Supreme Court was told Monday, a criminal defendant who has paid fines and other penalties as a consequence of being convicted gets the money back if the verdict is overturned.
The exception is Colorado, where a freed defendant must file suit and prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to request a refund.
But perhaps not for long.
Practically every member of the court who spoke at Monday’s oral argument seemed to find something to question about Colorado’s procedure, which a lawyer for two defendants said stood the normal burden of proof on its head.
The process is “tantamount to charging people money for the privilege of trying them unlawfully,” said Stuart Banner, a UCLA law professor.
Such was the barrage of questions for Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger that Justice Stephen G. Breyer at one point apologized. “I mean, you — I grant you have a tough side of this argument,” Breyer said. “It doesn’t seem very fair.”
Yarger stood his ground, saying that because the fines were valid at the time they were levied, the funds belong to the state. And the state has discretion on how to refund them — or whether to refund them at all.
Justice Elena Kagan told Yarger to put aside the legalities and describe “just in common-sensical terms, why is this the state’s money?”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that under Colorado’s reasoning, the state could mandate that “everybody who is convicted owes the state $10,000” and that no one gets the money back, even if the conviction is overturned.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/high-court-questions-why-refunds-arent-automatic-when-a-colo-conviction-is-overturned/2017/01/09/e4418c6c-d69f-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.0de303e0f1c8
