Criminal,
Constitutional Law,
California Supreme Court
Feb. 18, 2020
Courts shouldn’t punish those who can’t afford to pay fines
Does due process require an ability to pay before imposing criminal fines? Is it fundamentally unfair to impose assessments to fund the courts on the poor, who can never pay the fines but suffer the consequences of civil judgments, collection calls and further cascading burden? These questions are currently before the California Supreme Court based on different answers provided by the California Courts of Appeal.
Timothy D. Reuben
Reuben MediationTim Reuben spent more than 40 years handling complex legal disputes in California's state and federal courts. As the founder and managing partner of Reuben Raucher & Blum in Los Angeles, he has worked on a wide range of matters through jury and bench trials, arbitration, mediation, judicial reference, and settlement conferences across multiple areas of civil law, including commercial, real estate, construction, employment, intellectual property, insurance, professional liability, and unfair competition.
Does due process require an ability to pay before imposing criminal fines? Is it fundamentally unfair to impose assessments to fund the courts on the poor, who can never pay the fines but suffer the consequences of civil judgments, collection calls and further cascading burden?
These questions are currently before the California Supreme Court based on different answers provided by the California Courts of Appeal. Unfortunately, the ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Criminal Law and Procedure
People v. Petri
Imposing restitution and assessment fines on defendants without consideration of their ability to pay does not violate due process unless defendant was denied court access.
Constitutional Law
People v. Duenas
A court must stay the execution of a restitution fine imposed by Penal Code Section 1202.4, until and unless the People demonstrate that a defendant has the ability to pay the fine.
Criminal Law and Procedure
People v. Hicks
'People v. Duenas' was not good law because the due process strands it addressed did not dictate its rule, and thus it incorrectly interpreted those due process strands.
Criminal Law and Procedure
People v. Santos
Prior to imposing court operations fines and criminal conviction assessments , a trial court must determine whether the criminal defendant is indigent or has the ability to pay the fine.
Criminal Law and Procedure
People v. Kopp
Properly instructed jury would have only found a single conspiracy when case involved same coconspirators, prosecution offered same overt acts, and relied on same evidence; thus, one coun...
