Dookhan defendants suing for refunds of fees and fines

Mar 1, 2018

UPDATE, March 1: After I published about the Martinez and Scott cases, a second SJC case came to my attention. This post has been updated to include this third case.

In three lawsuits — one at the federal level and two before the top court in Massachusetts — Dookhan defendants whose charges were vacated are suing Massachusetts and top state officials, seeking the return of a range of fees and fines they paid in the course of their arrest, incarceration and probation.

The cases rely on Nelson v. Colorado, a Supreme Court case from April 2017 that held the state of Colorado was obliged to refund various fees to a woman exonerated of a felony. (As it happens, the Nelson decision came out on April 19, 2017, the same day the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court vacated more than 20,000 Dookhan-related convictions.)

See my coverage for the Boston Globe here.

Stacy Foster et al v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al

In the federal class action suit, filed on Friday, February 23, 2018, three plaintiffs seek return of fees, fines, and property, including:

The plaintiffs also seek payment for “uncompensated labor,” including “community service in lieu of required payments,” according to the complaint embedded below.

For the suit to proceed, the court must first decide whether to certify the class.



Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Jose Martinez

In a separate matter, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed in mid-February to hear argument from a Dookhan defendant who paid more than $2,000 in fees after pleading guilty to drug possession charges.

The SJC docket is here and the Appeals Court docket is here.

See coverage from the Boston Herald here.

Last year, a district court judge kicked the question of whether Jose Martinez should get back this money up to the Appeals Court. On Martinez’s motion, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed on February 14, 2018 to hear the case. It has not yet been scheduled for argument, and briefs have not yet been filed to the SJC.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Stephanie Green

The same day it agreed to hear Martinez, the SJC sua ponte transferred a similar case from the Appeals Court. The SJC docket for this case is here and the Appeals Court docket is here. (Portions of the dockets for this case are impounded for reasons that are unclear.)

In December 2017, a district court judge reported questions to the Appeals Court regarding the refund of fees and fines to Ms. Green totaling more than $5,000, as well as the return of approximately $1,400 in forfeited cash. According to the judge’s report, the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office “does not dispute that the defendant may be entitled to the return of the $5,000 assessment in fines.” However, the Middlesex DA also argues “that that the defendant is not entitled to the return of forfeited property.” The SJC transferred the case on February 14, 2018.

The judge in this case was aware that Martinez had already reported questions as to the return of various fees to Dookhan defendants. In this case, then, the judge seeks answers as to “what, if any, obligation the Commonwealth has to return money ordered forfeited” to the thousands of Dookhan defendants whose convictions have been dismissed.

No briefs have yet been filed to the SJC, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled.