You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myDaytonDailyNews.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 myDaytonDailyNews.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 myDaytonDailyNews.com.

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

The Trump administration says it's not pushing a tax cut for the rich.  
The Trump administration says it's not pushing a tax cut for the rich.  

President Donald Trump's top tax lieutenants are billing his approach as relief for the middle class, saying ordinary taxpayers would see big cuts while the rich would go on paying as much as they do now.   That description, however, is sharply at odds with what details the administration has put forward thus far.   On Wednesday...
Ohio’s public pension systems shift more health care costs to retirees
Ohio’s public pension systems shift more health care costs to retirees

Cops, firefighters, teachers and other public employees in Ohio have long rested easy knowing a steady pension check and affordable health care would be there for them at the end of their careers. But big changes — and considerably higher costs —are coming for many of the 442,000 Ohioans who look to the pension system for all or a portion...
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...
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...
Fox News’ latest headache: Jesse Watters denies his Ivanka Trump comment was lewd
Fox News’ latest headache: Jesse Watters denies his Ivanka Trump comment was lewd

 Jesse Watters, the Bill O’Reilly protégé who recently moved to the 9 p.m. slot on Fox News as a host of the “The Five,” made a comment Tuesday that critics saw as a lewd joke directed at Ivanka Trump.   Responding to footage of Trump being jeered on stage in Berlin while speaking on a panel about female...
More Stories