Court Opinion

ID: 9425734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:15:37.563211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:48.611880
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,
dissenting.
In my view, the Oregon recoupment statute at issue in this case discriminates against indigent defendants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the principles established by this Court in James v. Strange, 407 U. S. 128 (1972). In that case we held unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause a Kansas recoupment statute because it failed to provide equal treatment between indigent defendants and other civil judgment debtors. We relied on the fact that indigent defendants were not entitled to the protective exemptions Kansas had erected for other civil judgment debtors.
The Oregon recoupment statute at issue here similarly provides unequal treatment between indigent defendants *60and other civil judgment debtors. The majority obfuscates the issue in this case by focusing solely on the question whether the Oregon statute affords an indigent defendant the same protective exemptions provided other civil debtors. True, as construed by the Oregon Court of Appeals, the statute does not discriminate in this regard. But the treatment it affords indigent defendants remains unequal in another, even more fundamental, respect. The important fact which the majority ignores is that under Oregon law, the repayment of the indigent defendant’s debt to the State can be made a condition of his probation, as it was in this case. Petitioner’s failure to pay his debt can result in his being sent to prison. In this respect the indigent defendant in Oregon, like the indigent defendant in James v. Strange, is treated quite differently from other civil judgment debtors.
Petitioner’s “predicament under this statute comes into sharper focus when compared with that of one who has hired counsel in his defense.” 407 U. S., at 136. Article 1, § 19, of the Oregon Constitution provides that “[t]here shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud or absconding debtors.” Hence, the nonindigent defendant in a criminal case in Oregon who does not pay his privately retained counsel, even after he obtains the means to do so, cannot be imprisoned for such failure. The lawyer in that instance must enforce his judgment through the normal routes available to a creditor — by attachment, lien, garnishment, or the like. Petitioner, on the other hand, faces five years behind bars if he fails to pay his “debt” arising out of the appointment of counsel.
Article 1, § 19, of the Oregon Constitution is representative of a fundamental state policy consistent with the modern rejection of the practice of imprisonment for debt as unnecessarily cruel and essentially counterproductive.
*61Since Oregon chooses not to provide imprisonment for debt for well-heeled defendants who do not pay their retained counsel, I do not believe it can, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, imprison an indigent defendant for his failure to pay the costs of his appointed counsel.1 For as we held in James v. Strange, a State may not “impose unduly harsh or discriminatory terms merely because the obligation is to the public treasury rather than to a private creditor.” 407 U. S., at 138.
I would therefore hold the Oregon recoupment statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause insofar as it permits payment of the indigent defendant’s debt to be made a condition of his probation.2 I respectfully dissent.

 The majority argues that we have recognized no constitutional infirmity in imprisoning a defendant with the means to pay a fine who refuses or neglects to do so. Ante, at 53 n. 12. This case does not involve a fine, however, but rather enforcement of a debt for legal services. The fact remains that Oregon imprisons a defendant with appointed counsel who refuses or neglects to pay his debt for legal services even though able to pay, but does not imprison a defendant with retained counsel in the same circumstances.

 In light of my disposition of the equal protection claim, I have no occasion to consider petitioner’s contention that some other defendant’s knowledge that he may have to reimburse the State for providing him legal representation might impel him to decline the services of an appointed attorney and thus chill his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In any event, in my view such a claim could more appropriately be considered by this Court in the context of an actual case involving a defendant who, unlike petitioner, had refused appointed counsel and contended that his refusal was not a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Sixth Amendment rights because it was based upon his fear of bearing the burden of a debt for appointed counsel or upon his failure to understand the limitations the State imposes on such a debt.