Constitutionality of making defendant pay court cost

On Apr 11, 7:22 am, "Daibhidh" <no.repl...@no.where> wrote:
> Section 1.3 (a) reads:
>
> A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations * * * shall be punished by a fine as
> provided by law, or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both, and
> shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.
>
> Adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings? I always thought criminal
> prosecutions were financed by the government. Most defendants - however
> convinced of their innocence - would not dare to contest an offense with a
> modest fine when the result could be an obligation to pay unspecified
> prosecutorial expenditures by the NPS.

"Costs" does not include attorney fees, as usually interpreted in USA courts.  It only includes the case filing fee, and other fees paid directly to the court in connection with trial of the case.  Since a fine is an authorized punishment, this simply means the court can legally take into account the amount of court costs in determining a proper fine.

Here in MD and I suspect in many other locales, even a conviction of a simple traffic or parking offense will obligate the losing defendant to pay court costs in addition to a fine.   The costs are usually much lower than whatever the fine would be so, for instance, instead of just imposing e.g. a $150.00 fine for a speeding ticket (the default amount shown on the ticket, if you just mail it in) and if the judge wants to give you the same deal you would have got if you didn't contest the ticket, he will say, "Guilty; fined $120 plus $30 in court costs."   The only difference is that the $120 goes into the state treasury's general fund, and the $30 goes to help support the operation of the court.

Typically, if you have anything approaching a decent explanation, even if you are found guilty the judge will reduce the combined fine/costs from the default amount, so you are almost always better off going to court than not.   However, if your facts show particularly egregious behavior (drag racing, e.g., even if all you got ticketed for was speeding) the judge can impose a fine _higher_ than the default amount, up to whatever the maximum is for that offense (in MD, for even the simplest traffic offense the maximum possible fine is $1000).   But then, it is the fine itself, not the court costs (in MD dist. ct., still only $30!) that are going to hit you hard.

So, no, IMO it's not unconstitutional.  Even if it was, lots of luck trying that argument on a magistrate hearing a crowded misdemeanor docket where you are accused of e.g. littering in a national park.   Try another approach if your goal is to save yourself money and aggravation rather than to make a point.  Abject humility and remorse, and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court has a better chance of succeeding in getting your fine reduced (and even that is pretty slim).  Good luck,

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300