Iowa Supreme Court is Considering if the State Can Charge Acquitted Defendants for Court-Appointed Attorneys

Iowa has one of the most aggressive court systems in the country when it comes to billing defendants for court-appointed attorneys, even in cases where they're acquitted or charges are dropped.

The Iowa Supreme Court is being asked to consider, again, if state courts can bill poor defendants for their court-appointed lawyers, even when they're acquitted or the charges against them are dropped.

If the court takes up the case, State of Iowa v. Ronald Pagliai, it will be the second time in recent years that Iowa's highest court has ruled on the state's unusually aggressive practice of billing poor defendants for court-appointed attorneys. Several civil liberties groups—the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and Public Justice—filed an amicus brief in that case earlier this month, arguing that the state's fee scheme is unconstitutionally vague and violates the presumption of innocence by levying sanctions against nonconvicted defendants.

"Courts cannot uphold a fair justice system if they are funding it on the backs of the most vulnerable people that come before them," Lisa Foster, co-executive director of the FFJC, said in a press release. "To further extend this miscarriage of justice by enforcing it even when the case is dismissed sends a clear message that puts profit over people."

Everyone knows the part of the Miranda rights spiel about having the right to an attorney, but fewer know that a constitutionally guaranteed lawyer isn't necessarily free.

According to a 2022 report by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), 42 states and the District of Columbia allow courts to charge fees for public defender systems. However, civil liberties groups and news investigations say Iowa is extreme in terms of the amount of fees and the fact that it bills defendants whose charges were thrown out. 

In February, The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news outlet covering the criminal justice system, reported on how the Iowa court system saddled indigent defendants with debts for their court-appointed attorneys, even in cases where they were acquitted.

In 2015, Lori Mathes, one of the main subjects of The Marshall Project's story, was charged with a felony drug offense after police found two grams of marijuana in her home. Unable to afford a lawyer, she received court-appointed counsel. Prosecutors struck a deal with Mathes two years later to dismiss her case in exchange for her agreeing to pay court fines and fees. Mathes was shocked to receive a bill for $3,000 in Indigent Defense Fee Recoupment (IDFR) costs.

Mathes appealed her charges up to the Iowa Supreme Court, which in 2020 issued a split 3-3 ruling, leaving intact the lower court rulings upholding her charges.

In State of Iowa v. Ronald Pagliai, Pagliai was assessed $489 in IDFR costs for two charges related to alleged shoplifting, even though the charges were dismissed.

The Marshall Project's analysis of Iowa court data found that between 2012 and 2022, the state sent bills totaling $30 million to indigent defendants who were acquitted or whose charges were dropped.

Iowa does not require courts to consider whether defendants can afford IDFR costs, which by definition they are unlikely to. As a result, the system not only saddles poor defendants with debts, but the state rarely collects on those debts, either. The NLADA report found that "in recent years, no more than 3.2 percent of assessed cost of counsel fees have been collected annually."

Nevertheless, the system has its defenders.

"I think the purpose of that is simply to kind of hold them accountable a little bit," Iowa state Rep. Brian Lohse, a Republican who chairs the Justice System Appropriations Subcommittee told The Marshall Project. "So they just don't see it as a kind of gift."

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel under the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. It is as much a "gift" as the First Amendment right to criticize the government without facing retaliation.

However, public defender systems across the country are underfunded and overworked, and in many cases simply don't have the resources to give their clients competent representation.

Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa, said in a press release that it's "fundamentally unfair to charge anyone exercising their constitutional right to free counsel."

"By definition, these are circumstances where the state has already determined someone is indigent and cannot afford to hire their own lawyer," Austen continued. "It's even worse when the state charges someone for these costs when the charges are ultimately dismissed. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty under the law."

The Iowa Supreme Court will now decide whether to retain the case or send it to a lower appeals court.

Comments

[SMP0328]

"I think the purpose of that is simply to kind of hold them accountable a little bit," Iowa state Rep. Brian Lohse, a Republican who chairs the Justice System Appropriations Subcommittee told The Marshall Project. "So they just don't see it as a kind of gift."

Accountable for what, you jackass?! If the defendant is acquitted, there's a mistrial, or the charges are dropped, then the presumption of innocence stands. In that case, the defendant is accountable to nothing and nobody.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Loser pays ought to be standard.

[SMP0328]

So, the government should reimburse the defendant for the court costs borne by that defendant if the trial results in an acquittal or the charges are dropped. Sounds fair to me.

[Longtobefree]

It could be funded by redirecting all DEI salaries and programs, and assessing the idiot who filed the charges for incomitance.

[R. K. Phillips]

Yep. I'm surprised it's not this way now. Also, the gov't should pay you for any time you spent behind bars.

[n00bdragon]

I would take umbrage with the second sentence more than the first. It is a gift. It's the gift the founders gave to you when they wrote the bill of rights. Even if you are standing knee deep in the blood of the people you have so obviously murdered you are entitled to an attorney. That means you can hire your own, but if you can't or won't then one must be appointed for you and that must be done at the state's expense. Is it a burden on the state? ABSOLUTELY. As it should be.

Threatening to stick people with charges if they wind up guilty is just another tool for coerced plea deal and the further end-run around the jury trial system we should be holding dearly.

[SMP0328]

[MOVED]

[Longtobefree]

With the democrat inflation and interest rates, how can you afford to move?

[DRM]

Do they, in fact, get charged these fees when they're acquitted or the charges dropped? Because, you see, nobody's actually provided an example of that.

The first example involved a plea bargain that included agreeing to pay court costs, not an outright acquittal or dropping of charges. (And per the Marshall Project story, that deal included "reimbursing the state for the cost of her lawyers".)

And in the second case, following the link to the amicus curae brief and reading it, was a single court hearing over several charges combining both dismissals and guilty pleas, which, to me, sounds like another plea bargain.

And then reading through the Marshall Project story linked, well, every case actually described in that story involves another plea bargain.

So none of these actual examples are, in fact, cases where there have been acquittals, or the court found the charges were without merit, or the prosecution came to the conclusion that the defendant shouldn't have been charged, or even where there was a mistrial and the prosecution gave up. They are instead cases where the defendant took a deal involving admitting responsibility for a crime, at least one of those times explicitly including paying for the public defender.

One could make an argument on principle that, in fact, lawyers should be provided entirely free for the guilty. But such an argument doesn't start by claiming that the acquitted are being billed.

[StevenF]

Which part of "Iowa Supreme Court considering if the state can charge acquitted defendants for court appointed attorneys" went over your head.
Note: If the court rules yes, the state WILL impose charges, even if they haven't to date.

[gnome]

A journalists's opinion on what a case is about doesn't actually mean anything.

[DRM]

I understand that sentence just fine. The thing is, that sentence isn’t true.

See, State of Iowa v. Ronald Pagliai doesn’t involve any acquitted defendants. Ronald Pagliai was not acquitted, he signed a plea deal. ( https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/court-of-appeals/2017/16-0211.html )

Indeed, if you actually read the amicus brief that the ACLU filed, which is linked in the article, on page 17 the ACLU makes a specific legal point of the fact that Ronald Pagliai was not acquitted.

So, since there are no acquitted defendants involved in this case, the question of whether acquitted defendants can be charged for court-appointed attorneys is not, in fact, something that the Iowa Supreme Court is “considering” in this case, whatever misapprehensions Mr. Ciaramella is under.

———

Now, having established that this case has nothing to do with acquitted defendants, there’s still the question as to whether Iowa, in fact, does ever charge acquitted defendants for court-provided attorneys.

Certainly, the statute law in Iowa as written allows for it, and that’s pretty stupid. But there are lots of unenforced stupid laws on the books all over the place (Michigan, for example, has a felony adultery statute on the books that has a provision that specifies that cohabiting divorced couple is guilty of adultery). So, whatever the statute says, do acquitted defendants in Iowa ever actually get charged for their court-appointed attorneys?

Well, it’s possible, but, none of the examples in the links provided by Mr. Ciaramella involve anyone who was acquitted.

[Michael Ejercito]

Mr.Ciaramella lied.

[Longtobefree]

Just because you are innocent doesn't mean the state can't take your money.

[Liberty_Belle]

Everybody knows you have to pay for the right to be innocent, peasant. Now get back to work before I find something else to falsely charge you for the right to be innocent of ... for a fee.

[fuck libertarians]

What a stupid, cruel country this is.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Relative to where?

[Roberta]

Oh, I get it: This must be the October counterpart to April Fool's Day, in the antipodal part of the calendar, and you're trying to see how mean and petty we could believe government officials could get.

[Roberta]

"I think the purpose of that is simply to kind of hold them accountable a little bit,"

Accountable for not being guilty? There you go, wasting the state's time and money when you're not even guilty...some nerve! Next time you better have a better case against you.

[Social Justice is neither]

What part of guilty plea deal that includes paying for your lawyer means innocent to you?

[StevenF]

What part of ACQUITTED means a guilty plea to you?

[Michael Ejercito]

Which one of them was acquitted?

[Incunabulum]

Why are they billing defendants *at all*?

If you want the privilege of locking me up in a cage, then you can foot the whole bill.

[AT]

So, there’s a weird little set of competing interests here. (6A is kinda funny like that.)

On the one hand, the Constitution guarantees Right to Counsel. Absent waiver, you get an attorney to advocate for you. On its face, that implies that the cost of it is assumed by the State who is charging you, knowing that the presumption is that you’re innocent.

On the other hand, the Public Defender’s office isn’t free. It’s not a charity (that’d be pro bono work). Now, sometimes PD’s will work cases pro bono, but more often than not they’re paid a salary. (And in some states, notably California, it can be a fairly impressive one. Maybe not as impressive as private practice, but certainly better than a lot of other white/blue collar work.) They also have staff (paralegals and secretaries) who have a salary, there are court fees, litigation expenses, etc etc.

So, it’s not free. The cost has to come from somewhere. I’m personally of the position that’s a legitimate government function for which taxation is appropriate. But I’m not naive to the fact that the government is woefully irresponsible with how it spends money, so the PDO probably isn’t budgeted as well as it should be.

Where then, should the money come from. See, that’s why 6A is one of the weirder Amendments. It’s not like 1A where it’s pretty clear that you have a right to speak or practice religion, but that doesn’t mean it comes with a microphone or a church to do it in. It’s a right to exercise a liberty, whereas 6A is a right to someone else’s assistance. The same goes with the speedy trial – how do you balance “speedy” with the need for time to prepare an effective prosecution and defense? To say nothing of working around the Court backlog. 6A is weird that way.

It seems callous, and not in keeping with the Constitutional intent, to put the cost of defense on the defendant – whether he’s found guilty OR not guilty. But because it’s a right to someone else’s labor and work product, we can’t make that someone else do it for nothing either. And if the problem can’t be managed through taxation and legitimate spending…

I don’t know. I’d like to think that criminal defendants – especially ones exonerated by a public defender – would want to pay it forward, but I also can’t imagine any valid argument that requires them to.

6A is weird.

[JonFrum]

Wait, wait ... you mean it's outrageous that the lawyer who gets you acquitted SHOULDN'T be paid by the defendant? Then I presume that it's reasonable that the lawyer who fails to get you acquitted SHOULD be paid by the defendant. Is that right? Stop and think about it. If you think that the outcome doesn't matter, then the above question isn't relevant. But the article claims that it does matter - at least rhetorically. And it seems to me that even rhetorically it's got the case backwards.

[rbike]

You missed the main point where the acquittal implies the legal action should have never happened in the first place.

(Living in Iowa and have not been charged recently.)