If you get remanded and are later found not guilty, are you compensated anyway?

[bouv]

Whilst watching an episode of Law and Order in which the defendant is remanded without bail, I have to wonder. if you are later found not guilty, but spent possibly several weeks or months in jail, are you in any way compensated? What if you lost your job because of the arrest? Or you didn’t lose it, but still have wages you didn’t earn because of it?

Do you have to file a civil suit after the fact to try and get them back?

[Hazle_Weatherfield]

Boy, I’ve always wondered about this, especially in the cases where innocent people have spent YEARS in prison. You’d think they would be (and should be, as far as I’m concerned) awarded millions of dollars!

[drachillix]

My google-fu is weak but I know I have heard of compensation for people who did serious time but were later released.

[alphaboi867]

Don’t Commonwealth countries (UK, Australia, Canada, etc) follow the English Rule and award costs to defendents who’ve been acquitted?

[ChrisBooth12]

I have heard that the innocent person usually fights it but usually doesn’t get anything back. It is not the states fault you were put into prison you had a trial by jury right?

[Duckster]

@alphaboi867

Don’t Commonwealth countries (UK, Australia, Canada, etc) follow the English Rule and award costs to defendents who’ve been acquitted?

I recall a story (out of the UK?) within the past year where someone who had served extensive time in prison was released after they found out they did not commit the crime. They were released from prison. Several days later they received a bill from the prison for the food and accommodations they used.

[Gfactor]

Sometimes wrongfully convicted people get *some *compensation: Do the wrongfully imprisoned get compensation? - The Straight Dope

But I think the OP is talking about folks who get denied bail, stand trial, and get acquitted. I’m unware of any jurisdiction that provides compensation for that.

[Gfactor]

Apparently some jurisdictions do offer some compensation.

Aguiar’s motion for compensation is predicated on G.L. c. 277, ’ 73. That provision, titled ‘Compensation Of Persons Discharged in Certain Cases,’ provides in relevant part that any person in the Commonwealth kept in confinement awaiting trial more than six months after having been indicted, and finally acquitted or discharged without trial, if the delay was not at his request or with his consent or at the request or consent of his attorney of record, may receive compensation for the period of his confinement after the lapse of said six months and until his acquittal or discharge; provided, that the payment of compensation is approved by the justice who presided at the trial[.]

Slip Opinions | Social Law Library | Boston, MA (compensation denied).

[Flander]

Damnit, Gfactor! I spent 5 minutes looking for your article and you go and beat to the link!

[Tom_Tildrum]

Bear in mind that a bail determination is not supposed to be a predictor of whether or not a defendant is guilty. Rather, it’s supposed to be an assessment of whether the defendant is potentially a flight risk or a danger to others. Thus, an eventual verdict of not guilty does not necessarily mean that the ruling denying bail was incorrect.

[Gfactor]

**Continental Jurisdictions **
The LRC Report on bail gives a brief summary of the law in relation to bail in a number of jurisdictions on the continent. In essence it can be said that all jurisdictions examined accept that if the accused might commit further offences while on bail it is a ground for detention prior to trial. However, many of these countries also provide for compensation in the event that the accused is ultimately acquitted or the detention illegal. Of concern however is recognition that public alarm at the offence is a ground for a pre-trial detention.

http://www.iccl.ie/DB_Data/publications/ICCL%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Bail%20Referendum.pdf (Emphasis added.)

[groman]

@Tom_Tildrum

Bear in mind that a bail determination is not supposed to be a predictor of whether or not a defendant is guilty. Rather, it’s supposed to be an assessment of whether the defendant is potentially a flight risk or a danger to others.

Are you saying that a crime somebody is charged with is not taken into consideration of the bail amount, only the potential sentence, ties to the community, etc?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@ChrisBooth12

I have heard that the innocent person usually fights it but usually doesn’t get anything back. It is not the states fault you were put into prison you had a trial by jury right?

So the Jury should pay? Kinda seems like that’d make every verdict be Not Guilty. Just incase.

[DrDeth]

Of course if there was Police or Prosecutorial misconduct, for example if you were framed, then you’d have a good lawsuit.

[Northern_Piper]

@alphaboi867

Don’t Commonwealth countries (UK, Australia, Canada, etc) follow the English Rule and award costs to defendents who’ve been acquitted?

Costs only apply as a general rule in civil suits (in Canada, at least). There is provision in the Criminal Code for the Crown to pay costs, but it’s for exceptional cases. A routine acquittal does not normally warrant costs.

p.s. - only in the U.S. have I heard costs called “the English rule.” It’s just called costs up here, as a normal part of civil procedure.

[Szlater]

@Duckster

They were released from prison. Several days later they received a bill from the prison for the food and accommodations they used.

Not quite.

It is deducted from their compensation payment after a conviction is quashed.

For instance, this story.

Two men, wrongfully convicted of murdering a child, spent 18 years in prison. One was awarded a compensation payment of £990,000 and the other £506,220, and £60,000 was deducted from each for lodging and accommodation costs.

[Gfactor]

I’ve always understood the English Rule to be a rule about the award of attorneys’ fees.

Under the English rule, the losing party pays the successful party’s attorney’s fees, as well as other court costs. The United States is a notable exception, operating under the American Rule, whereby each party bears its own legal expenses. Some tort reform advocates propose adopting a “loser pays” rule in the United States.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/2543/Attorney's_fees.html

Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, Federal Agencies and Selected...

The first statement gets the American Rule wrong. Costs are recoverable by the prevailing party in most jurisdictions.

87. (a) Costs. Costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party as provided by these rules, unless the Court otherwise directs.

     (b) Taxation of Costs. Upon written request, the clerk shall tax costs in any case, which shall include the fees of the clerk and fees for service of process which are documented in the court file.
    
      Any party claiming other allowable costs shall file a motion to allow costs together with an itemized, verified bill of all costs requested, to be ruled upon by the Court.  Any party aggrieved by the Court's order concerning costs may appeal therefrom within 30 days from the date of notice of such order, regardless of whether an appeal concerning the underlying judgment is sought.
    
     (c) Allowable Costs. The following costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party: Fees of the clerk, fees for service of process, witness fees, expense of view, cost of transcripts, and such other costs as may be provided by law. The court, in its discretion, may allow the stenographic cost of an original transcript of a deposition, plus one copy, including the cost of videotaping, and may allow other costs including, but not limited to, actual costs of expert witnesses, if the costs were reasonably necessary to the litigation.
    

Welcome | New Hampshire Judicial Branch

(d) Costs; Attorney’s Fees.

(1) Costs Other than Attorneys’ Fees.

Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs on 1 day’s notice. On motion served within the next 5 days, the court may review the clerk’s action.

(2) Attorneys’ Fees.

(A) Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney’s fees and related nontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages.

(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court order provides otherwise, the motion must:

(i) be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment;

(ii) specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the movant to the award;

(iii) state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it; and

(iv) disclose, if the court so orders, the terms of any agreement about fees for the services for which the claim is made.

(C) Proceedings. Subject to Rule 23(h), the court must, on a party’s request, give an opportunity for adversary submissions on the motion in accordance with Rule 43(c) or 78. The court may decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the value of services. The court must find the facts and state its conclusions of law as provided in Rule 52(a).

(D) Special Procedures by Local Rule; Reference to a Master or a Magistrate Judge. By local rule, the court may establish special procedures to resolve fee-related issues without extensive evidentiary hearings. Also, the court may refer issues concerning the value of services to a special master under Rule 53 without regard to the limitations of Rule 53(a)(1), and may refer a motion for attorney’s fees to a magistrate judge under Rule 72(b) as if it were a dispositive pretrial matter.

(E) Exceptions. Subparagraphs (A)-(D) do not apply to claims for fees and expenses as sanctions for violating these rules or as sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule54.htm

[Gfactor]

Here’s a previous thread we did on a similar topic: If you’re found not guilty can you get reimbursed for attorneys fees?

[Gfactor]

@Gfactor

Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, Federal Agencies and Selected ... - Mary V. Capisio - Google Books

This is a better cite: Henry Cohen, “Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, and Federal Agencies,” in Mary Capisio, Ed. Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, Federal Agencies and Selected Foreign Countries (2002): Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, Federal Agencies and Selected ... - Mary V. Capisio - Google Books (making clear that the rule is about fee-shifting).

[Peter_Morris]

@alphaboi867

Don’t Commonwealth countries (UK, Australia, Canada, etc) follow the English Rule and award costs to defendents who’ve been acquitted?

IANAL - awarding costs is only done in civil disputes. Even then it’s discretionary, a judge may award full costs, partial costs, or no costs depending on the merits of the case.

In criminal trials a defendant does not need to recover costs - he **has **no costs. A lawyer is provided for him, free of charge, and the bill goes to the government. Whether he’s found guilty or acquitted he does not have to pay his lawyers. Not just the trial, either, he gets free legal representation during the investigation.

(Talking about UK, other Commonwealth countries may differ)