Right to Counsel Archives - Page 5 of 6 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Colorado HB 16-1309: Concerning a defendant’s right to counsel in certain cases considered by municipal courts

This bill requires the Municipal Court to appoint counsel in certain circumstances, including if a defendant is in custody or faces the possibility of custody for nonpayment of fines and fees.

Kneisser v. McInerney et al.

Plaintiff, a 20 year old college student, was sentenced to jail because he was unable to pay a $206 statutory fine with $33 in court costs for throwing a cigarette butt out of his car window.

Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families

This report is the result of a collaborative research project from 20 community-based organizations that studied the costs of incarceration on families across 14 states.

Michigan Supreme Court Ability to Pay Workgroup: Tools and Guidance for Determining and Addressing an Obligor’s Ability to Pay

Over the course of six months in 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court Ability to Pay workgroup examined the issue of ability to pay and published a report with tools, best practices, and recommendations for judges and court staff around nonpayment incarceration.

Jenkins v. City of Jennings

The complaint alleged that impoverished city residents were jailed solely because of their inability to pay court fines and fees from traffic and other municipal violations.

Thompson v. Dekalb County

Mr. Thompson was jailed for five days due to his inability to pay fines and fees. He was not informed of his right to request court-appointed counsel, and was ultimately not provided with counsel, nor a pre-deprivation indigency hearing prior to being jailed.

Unified But Not Uniform: Judicial Funding Issues in Alabama

This study explains how the current lack of uniformity in funding of Alabama’s courts, even after the 1973 establishment of the Unified Judicial System (UJS), warrants a second wave of reform.

Mitchell v. City of Montgomery

Unable to pay debt from traffic tickets, impoverished defendants were given the options of paying the debt immediately or sitting out their debt in jail at the rate of $50.00 a day. Those in jail were given the further option of performing janitorial services at the rate of $25.00 a day. No inquiry was made as to the defendant’s ability to pay.

The Burden of Criminal Justice Debt in Alabama

Foster Cook’s report includes quantitative and qualitative survey results from 943 participants from 13 counties in Alabama. The report includes information about the collateral consequences of increased court costs on incarcerated people in Alabama, including harsh penalties for nonpayment and the phenomenon of defendants turning to crime as a funding source to pay their fines and fees.

Cleveland v. City of Montgomery et al. & Watts v. City of Montgomery et al

The SPLC filed a lawsuit challenging Cleveland’s and Watts’ incarceration as a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution.