This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, December 21st, 2016. I'm Caleb Brown.

When a court recognizes that you are legally not guilty of a crime, but you've already paid restitution,

it should logically follow that you get your money back.

That's not how it works in Colorado, and next year the Supreme Court will hear the case of Nelson

V Colorado.

David Post wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Cato Institute.

He comments on the case.

I guess let me just walk you through it for instance here.

Okay.

I'm in Denver, Colorado. I get arrested. I am charged. I am convicted of some crime.

And then I am ordered to pay restitution.

I pay that restitution, but I appeal the case.

And it is eventually found out that, well, because of some rule of evidence, that the state was not properly applying,

they cannot prove that I committed this crime.

And the case is thrown out the conviction is vacated

now what happens to me trying to get my restitution back.

Right in in most states you would simply ask the court, the court that is vacating the conviction

as part of that you would move and say, okay, I pay here's here my receipts, I paid this

much money, please give me my money back and they would do so.

They will order the state to pay you back.

Colorado does not operate that way.

The Colorado Supreme Court has held that you have to file, if you want your money back, you have to file if you want your money back you have to file this separate

...