Iowa Supreme Court considers whether defendants must pay state for court-appointed attorneys

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

If the court will consider the case, Iowa State vs. Ronald Pagliaiit will be the second time in recent years that Iowa’s highest court has ruled on the state’s unusually aggressive practice of billing indigent defendants for court-appointed attorneys. Several civil liberties groups—the Justice Center for Fines and Taxes (FFJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and Public Justice—filed a amicus brief in that case earlier this month, arguing that the state’s charging scheme is unconstitutionally vague and violates the presumption of innocence by imposing penalties on unconvicted defendants.

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

Everyone knows the Miranda rights part of the game about having a right to an attorney, but fewer know that a constitutionally guaranteed attorney is not 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 the amount of fees and billing defendants whose charges have been thrown out.

In February, The Marshall Projecta nonprofit news station covering the criminal justice system, reported about how the Iowa court system saddled indigent defendants with debt 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’his story, was charged with a 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 the case in exchange for her agreeing to pay fines and court fees. Mathes was shocked to receive a bill for $3,000 in Indigent Defense Fee Recovery (IDFR) costs.

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

In Iowa State vs. Ronald PagliaiPagliai was assessed $489 in IDFR costs for two charges related to the alleged theft, even though the charges were dismissed.

The The Marshall Project’The 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 had their charges dropped.

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

However, the system has its defenders.

“I think the goal is simply to hold them accountable a little bit,” said Iowa State Rep. Brian Lohse, a Republican who chairs the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee. The Marshall Project. “So I just don’t see it as some kind of gift.”

The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to legal assistance in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1963 trial. 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 overburdenedand in many cases they simply do not have the resources to provide competent representation to their clients.

Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa, said in a press release that it is “fundamentally unfair to charge anyone who exercises his constitutional right to free assistance.”

“By definition, these are circumstances where the state has already determined that someone is Indigenous and cannot afford to hire their own lawyer,” Austen continued. “It’s even worse when the state charges someone for those costs, when the charges are ultimately dismissed.

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