Nelson v. Colorado (15-1256)

argument 15-1256

Nelson v. Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States 56 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the basic common‑law right to get money back after a conviction is reversed?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 15-1256, Nelson v. Colorado. Mr. Banner.

Unknown 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, when a judgment is reversed, a person who has paid money pursuant to the judgment is entitled to get the money back. That's common sense, and that has, unsurprisingly, been normal practice for centuries. As far as we can tell, Colorado is the first state ever to adopt a rule to the contrary. In Colorado now, when a judgment of conviction is reversed, the state keeps the defendant's money unless the defendant files a separate civil action and can prove by clear and convincing evidence that she's actually innocent. What is the basis of the right? You said the person whose conviction is overturned has a right to get the money back. Is it a constitutional right?

Unknown 0:57

What kind of right is it? It's a right under the common law of property that's existed for centuries, that it has always been the case that a successful appellant gets her money back. In this case, the money was taken from Shannon Nelson and Lewis Madden pursuant to criminal convictions. It has to be constitutional if Colorado says we don't want to follow the common law. This is not the law here. So if it's not constitutional, then what's the basis for your case? No, so here, the Colorado Supreme Court did not say that this money belongs to the state of Colorado. Rather, the Colorado Supreme Court said the Exoneration Act is a good enough remedy for returning the money to Nelson and Madden. You're absolutely right, though, to say that if the Colorado Supreme Court had said,

Unknown 1:55

It doesn't matter what process we use because it's not their property. It's the state's property. If the Colorado Supreme Court had said that, then you're right. Then we would be having to say, making an argument that the Constitution itself gives the money, gives a right to the money to Nelson. Make that

Elena Kagan 2:11

argument.

Unknown 2:12

Excuse me?

Elena Kagan 2:12

Make that argument.

Unknown 2:13

Okay. So if the Colorado Supreme Court had said that this money belongs to the state rather than to Nelson and Madden, that would be tantamount to charging people money for the privilege of trying them unlawfully. It would be the state taking money as a result of a trial that has been reversed, a trial that was conducted unlawfully.

Elena Kagan 2:40

The dissent here said something quite simple. which was the only entitlement to the money was the conviction. Correct. If the conviction has been voided, then what legal right does the State have to retain the money?

Unknown 2:57

We agree with that exactly.

Elena Kagan 2:59

The Colorado Supreme Court, on the other hand, said when you paid the money, we were entitled to it. So there's a disconnect there. If they were entitled to it initially — We're still back to the operative question of why are they entitled — what is the constitutional right for you to get it

Unknown 3:21

back? The State was entitled to the money initially because there were judgments of conviction in place, judgments of conviction that required the payment of the money. Those judgments of conviction no longer exist. They were reversed on appeal. Shannon Nelson was retried and was acquitted of all charges. Lewis Madden, convictions were reversed and the prosecutor declined to to retry the case. And so while it was the State's money while the convictions existed, once those judgments of convictions ceased to exist, at that point it's no longer the State's money. I

Stephen G. Breyer 3:55

thought your

Samuel A. Alito 3:55

argument was this, but what you're saying now in a lot of your brief is much more complicated. But the simple argument I thought was this. This was your client's money. It's a certain amount of dollars, okay? It was taken away from them as a result of a trial that was flawed, and therefore they were deprived of that property without due process of law. I thought that was the argument. Am I right or not? You're right. Okay. Now, if that is the argument, there are two complications that I see in your briefing. One is that you concede that they could be denied restitution for equitable reasons. Let's just take that. Where else in the law of due process would something like that come