NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A federal appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on whether state criminal court judges in New Orleans have an unconstitutional conflict of interest arising from their power to assess fees and fines and their control of a court expense fund fed, in part, by those fees and fines.
The judges say they do not. And they asked a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to reject a lower court’s declaration that they do.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance said last year that the judges’ control of the roughly $4 million expense fund causes a conflict of interest when they are making a decision on whether a convicted defendant has the ability to pay fines or fees that flow into the fund. Her judgment came in a 2015 lawsuit opposing the way fines and fees are assessed in New Orleans’ criminal district court. Plaintiffs in the suit had said they were jailed without having a chance to prove they couldn’t pay court debts.
The judicial expense fund arrangement poses a “possible temptation” for judges to be biased, argued Rachel Shalev, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs’ side.
According to court records, the fund covers salaries and benefits for judges’ staffers, office supplies and equipment and the judges’ professional liability insurance.
Attorney Mindy Nunez Duffourc said control of the fund would not lead a judge to break an oath to administer the law fairly. She added that the judges have the ability to go to the city of New Orleans for more money if changes in the assessment of fines and fees results in a drop in funding.
The 5th Circuit panel members - Catherina Haynes, James Graves Jr. and James Ho - gave no indication when they would rule.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.