Supreme Court Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent

by | May 3, 2017

Supreme Court Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent

by | May 3, 2017

Says States Cannot Keep Money From The Innocent

With so many constitutional rights under siege, it’s welcome news when one of them is defended. Reaffirming the presumption of innocence, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law last month that forced criminal defendants to prove their innocence when the defendants’ convictions were already overturned. As the court explained, “Absent those convictions, Colorado would have no legal right to exact and retain petitioners’ funds.” Not only is this decision a win for due process, the court’s ruling in Nelson v. Colorado could have major ramifications for government shakedown schemes nationwide.

The case arose after two defendants, Shannon Nelson and Louis Madden, were convicted for sexual offenses and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in court costs, fees and restitution. Between her conviction and later acquittal, the state withheld $702 from Nelson’s inmate account, while Madden paid Colorado $1,977 after his conviction. When their convictions were overturned, Nelson and Madden demanded their money back.

Although a state appellate court sided with them, the Colorado Supreme Court denied their refund request. Instead, the court ruled that Nelson and Madden could reclaim their money only through the state’s Exoneration Act, which requires filing a civil claim and proving “that the person was actually innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted.”

Allowing that ruling to stand would fly in the face of centuries of Western legal traditions. As the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, noted in an amicus brief, “the presumption of innocence has deep historical roots” and can be traced back not only through American jurisprudence but through English common law, Roman law and even to the Pentateuch. Moreover, that presumption is a critical safeguard against a justice system “where individuals can be subjected to arbitrary and irrational deprivations of their liberty and property.”

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-1 ruling, ruled Colorado’s law was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that “the Exoneration Act’s scheme does not comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.” Nelson and Madden are “entitled to be presumed innocent” and “should not be saddled with any proof burden” to regain what is rightfully theirs.

Ginsburg forcefully rejected Colorado’s argument that “[t]he presumption of innocence applies only at criminal trials,” and not to civil claims, as under the Exoneration Act:  “Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”

Armed with this ruling, the Nelson decision may set an important precedent to rein in another abusive civil proceeding: civil forfeiture. The parallels are striking. Through civil forfeiture, law enforcement can confiscate and keep cash, cars and real estate without securing a criminal conviction or filing charges against the owner. Perversely, under civil forfeiture, even those found not guilty in criminal court can still forfeit their property in civil court, since the latter has a lower standard of proof.

Read the rest by Nick Sibilla at Forbes.

Institute for Justice

The Institute for Justice is the nation's only libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm.

View all posts

Our Books

Shop books published by the Libertarian Institute.

libetarian institute longsleeve shirt

Our Books

cb0cb1ef 3fcb 417d 80d8 4eef7bbd8290

Recent Articles

Recent

“Smart War” and State Terrorism

“Smart War” and State Terrorism

On June 16, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened the 10 million inhabitants of Tehran, Iran, with death, for their government’s alleged nuclear aspirations: Iran should have signed the “deal” I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply...

read more
US Bombing of Iran Harms Non-Proliferation

US Bombing of Iran Harms Non-Proliferation

Iran didn’t violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States did. When the U.S. bombed Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities on June 23, they didn’t just violate the cardinal rule of international law by attacking a sovereign nation, without Security...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This