Posted on 04/21/2017 5:59:04 AM PDT by blueplum
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.
{snip} 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It will just reduce the confiscation graft going on in police departments by around 1%.
How about making prosecutors who knowingly prosecute innocent persons do the time instead?
(Nifong, anyone? Alas, he is only one example; there are others.)
Not even.
I think this is related to a laboratory returning false information, not to prosecutor malfeasance.
This could be ugly. The court costs reimbursement will affect the courts’ budgets. The restitution issue is complicated because it’s possible an exonerated victim of justice was forced to pay a private party, e.g., the victim of the crime in the case. Who should repay that reimbursement? the victim of the crime who was reimbursed? The state? The state BAR?
Conviction overturned is one thing; proven innocent is another. If proven innocent the victim should be made whole as much as possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.