The California Supreme Court goes on the road for a day of oral arguments in Monterey.

If you’ve spent any amount of time in a criminal courtroom of Monterey County Superior Court in Salinas, you’ve probably heard a judge rattle off a repetitive script—again and again, for every defendant. At sentencing, there is a list of fees and fines imposed by the court that almost fade into background noise. Whether those fines and fees are ever paid, well, that’s another story. 

Sara Rubin here, to report that a significant chapter of that story was the subject of a vigorous discussion by the California Supreme Court today as they took up the case People v. Kopp, in which the court is set to decide whether courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing fines, fees and assessments and if so, which party bears the burden of proof to show the defendant's inability to pay. 

Admittedly the only reason I knew it was even happening was because the California Supreme Court convened for oral arguments in Colton Hall in Monterey. It’s a lot of work to bring the seven justices and their security apparatus on the road, with officers all over the Monterey City Hall property and a portable metal detector set up outside. 

The court normally meets in San Francisco. The idea of taking a field trip to another location is part of fulfilling an educational mission every October—Fresno in 2024, San Diego in 2023—and before the justices convened for their 9am session, they met with about 100 local students. 

“By bringing our courtroom to the community, we hope to create a deeper understanding of our court’s work and inspire the next generation to engage with the principles of justice, fairness and civic responsibility,” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said in a statement. 

I for one found it fascinating to tune in to the arguments for and against suspending court fees and assessments for the indigent. In Monterey County Superior Court, it’s just one judge at a time—here there are seven, and they strike a surprisingly conversational tone. They interjected and piggybacked off the attorneys and off each other, sometimes dwelling on some granular legal points, but often getting at the crux of the issue—people’s lived experience. 

Attorney Molly Mauck, representing a group of economic justice organizations including Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, described the reality for defendants who cannot pay amounts levied by the court and find themselves making impossible choices about whether to pay the rent or gas, and suffering disproportionate consequences due to indigence. There’s also the issue of the improbability of the court ever collecting those fees. She said it would be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

If a person simply cannot afford to pay, Justice Goodwin H. Liu had a direct question for Joshua A. Klein, representing the California Attorney General’s Office to defend the current structure: “What’s the point of requiring it, if a person can’t pay?”

“It serves a variety of purposes,” Klein responded, “including expressing how serious a crime is to society.”

I don’t know where the court will come out on this issue, but they may well end up adding a line to the script we hear repeated over and over in Salinas courtrooms about fines and fees issued upon sentencing. 

At a minimum, the court fulfilled an added layer of its mission to show the public how they do what they do—something they are taking extra seriously in times when government institutions are facing a crisis of losing trust. 

"We really embrace our responsibility to follow our ethical rules and responsibilities, and think that's important for the public to be able to see that and understand that we don't rule based on our own preferences. Instead, we follow the rule of law dictated by the facts and the law that's presented before us and try to be transparent and accountable in all our decisions," Guerrero said. "Some people are losing hope. But I still have hope for our country and judicial branch, and the reason is because of all of you here in this room, and in particular the students."