ACLU of Iowa Statement on Iowa Supreme Court Decision in Low-Income Legal Fees Case

Today the Iowa Supreme Court made a decision in the State of Iowa v. Ronald Pagliai (PAG-lee-eye). The lawsuit argued that Iowa courts may not bill low-income Iowans for the cost of their court-appointed defense attorney when criminal charges against the person have been dismissed.

The ACLU of Iowa, the Fines and Fees Justice Center, and Public Justice filed an amicus brief in the case.

You can read the press release with more background here.

You can read today's decision here.

Alex Kornya (KORN-yuh), Director of Litigation for the Legal Aid Justice Center and cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Iowa in the case, made the following statement:

"We filed this amicus brief because 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. 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.

"We are gratified that the Court recognized that agreements to pay debt in criminal cases violate Iowa law and are entered without authority. We are hopeful that this decision will prevent these kinds of agreements from being made in the future, since they tie people down to what is often a lifetime of unpayable debt with heavy consequences.

However, the opinion creates some questions as to whether the basic problem will ultimately be resolved. That basic problem is that thousands of Iowans already collectively owe millions of dollars in cases, even though they were convicted of no crime. These are, by definition, people who the court has already found are not able to afford to pay these costs (when it found them eligible for a court-appointed criminal defense attorney). This decision offers some much-needed clarity and much hope for the future, but that core, unresolved question will present some difficult choices to criminal defendants who can’t afford to hire their own lawyer. In particular, it could present a difficult choice regarding the risk of the prosecution being able to refile charges. Realistically, that may prevent many people who have had debt assessed in the past from being able to take advantage of the court’s decision today, that the order requiring them to pay it may be challenged as void.

"That’s not the only unanswered question. The decision also did not reach important constitutional questions that we raised. Only the concurrence discusses the constitutional issue implicated by the United States Supreme Court in Nelson v. Colorado, which still is an operative issue for anyone with debt in a case dismissed prior to 2012. We are all entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty under the Constitution. When charges are dismissed, there is no conviction. A person who is legally innocent of a criminal charge shouldn’t face a criminal penalty for it, plain and simple. But that is what happened here, and has been happening every day in Iowa, with these orders to pay in dismissed cases.

"Today's decision also does not address a common situation where the agreement to pay indigent defense costs in a dismissed case is not a formal plea agreement, which is a judge-supervised, detailed, highly regulated contract. Many people face situations like Lori Mathes, in much murkier agreements, with no opportunity for a judge to ensure the person understands their rights, and are often reduced to a sentence or less jotted down at the bottom of an order."