A case addressing whether criminal defendants who are later cleared of wrongdoing can be reimbursed for monetary penalties was one of eight new cases the Supreme Court agreed in its next term, which begins Monday.
Oral arguments are likely to be held in early 2017, with rulings coming in the spring.
Colorado, like most states, mandates those convicted of crimes to pay various monetary penalties, including court costs. But in Nelson v. Colorado, two defendants want to know if the state’s requirement for them to prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to get their money back following repeal of a conviction is consistent with due process.
The two defendants argue that Colorado “appears to be the only state” that imposes such a requirement, adding that it has “no legitimate interest to keep money that rightly belongs to people whose convictions have been reversed.”
The nation’s highest court is in a limbo of sorts, with only eight justices and a vacancy left by Antonin Scalia, who died in February. His would-be replacement, Merrick Garland, was nominated in March, but Senate Republicans have refused to hold a confirmation hearing.
Read more about the cases here.
