In a recent CSD article, former prosecutor (John Worrell) criticizes proposed HB14, which would force counties to pay back the legal fees of Wyomingites cleared of murder or manslaughter charges in shootings ruled as self-defense. First, the argument is made that such a bill “could undermine the principle of equal protection under the law.” Wyoming already has a law W.S. 7-1-103 that states “In all misdemeanor cases the county shall pay the costs if the defendant is acquitted.”
Four states provide broad reimbursement for acquitted defendants: Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Washington State has a nearly identical framework to HB14 allowing reimbursement specifically when a defendant is acquitted based on self‑defense. Seven states have laws allowing reimbursement specifically for certain publicly employed defendants (e.g. teachers, law enforcement): Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia.
The federal Hyde Amendment awards acquitted federal defendants reasonable attorney's fees and "other litigation expenses" when the defendant can prove that the prosecution's suit was "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith." Perhaps all these federal and state statutes (including Wyoming's) and the court cases thereafter failed to recognize “equal protection” and some vague “double standard” as put forth by Mr. Worrell.
But the real opposition arises here. “Literally every homicide and aggravated assault case would go to trial. Why not? You might end up with a windfall for killing or hurting someone badly,” Worrell said. Yes, everyone so charged may claim self-defense (as they already do). And they may want trials. So much new work for prosecutors to actually build a solid case of non-justified homicide as opposed to threats and intimidation to get a quick plea bargain. As to windfalls, if the judge and jury have acquitted you by self-defense, you are just being REIMBURSED for monies already spent or lost.
Mr. Worrell states that “If you were defending yourself...the reward is your freedom.” Apparently, he is unfamiliar with the refrain that “the process is the punishment.” You are hardly enjoying freedom after being jailed before trial, bankrupted by legal costs, shunned by polite society and probably fired from your job.
Mr. Worrell also laments that the trial court will assess and decide the amount of a defendant’s reimbursement, rather than the now acquitted “good guy” going through some separate administrative claims process with the same county government that just wrongly prosecuted him. As to when the expense ticker should begin, leave that to the court to make a discretionary ruling. We should all expect to be briefly “detained” but there is little cost to that.
Once arrested, the lawyers are engaged, bail/bond is imposed (or denied); employment is usually terminated (who wants to employ a “suspected murderer”), and so on. And the prosecutors may wait weeks to make a formal charging decision as they assess incoming evidence and roll through preliminary hearings. In the meantime, our “good guy” is racking up costs, both financial, emotional and societal.