A federal judge in Colorado has upheld a decision allowing the state to redirect a multimillion-dollar jury award intended for a disabled man towards his outstanding restitution obligations, a ruling that has sparked debate over rights and compensation.
U.S. District Judge S. Kato Crews confirmed that the Colorado Department of Corrections acted within its rights by applying more than $3.6 million awarded to Jason Brooks against his existing debt from a 2010 criminal conviction for securities fraud. The jury’s decision, which followed a finding that Brooks’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act were violated, has raised questions about the state’s handling of restitution payments.
In his April 25 ruling, Judge Crews noted that although Brooks did not receive the payment in a manner he desired, it was clear he benefitted from the funds being allocated to his restitution account. “Mr. Brooks received the benefit of the CDOC’s payment because the funds were applied to his restitution account from his prior criminal convictions,” he wrote.
Brooks, who has been incarcerated since pleading guilty to multiple counts of securities fraud, suffers from ulcerative colitis, which required him to manage his bathroom needs frequently. During his time in prison, he claimed he missed thousands of meals while grappling with incontinence, leading to significant physical distress.
In 2022, a jury awarded Brooks approximately $3.5 million, which with interest, totaled nearly $3.66 million. However, the 19th Judicial District in Weld County subsequently intercepted this payment, directing it to the $5.1 million Brooks owed in restitution to his crime victims.
Brooks contested this decision, arguing to Judge Crews that simply compensating a third party does not fulfill the state’s obligation to pay him directly. His attorneys emphasized that a civil defendant who loses in court cannot settle a judgment by paying debts owed to others instead of the plaintiff.
Despite Brooks’ arguments, the state’s representations maintained that the redirected payment did not undermine the aims of the ADA, as Brooks had received economic benefit from the jury’s award through a reduction in his restitution debt. Assistant Attorney General Andrew M. Williams commented that the administrative interception brought both relief for Brooks’ victims and alleviated some of Brooks’ financial burdens.
Judge Crews agreed that Brooks gained from the payment interception, stating that the application of those funds to his restitution indirectly benefited both him and his victims. He clarified that the 19th Judicial District lacked involvement in the case and that Brooks would have to address any challenges to its actions independently.
Following the ruling, Brooks expressed dissatisfaction, stating he intended to appeal. He criticized Judge Crews for disregarding several of his arguments, claiming, “I think Judge Crews made an intellectually dishonest adjudication of this issue.” He further contended that he was worse off than he would have been had he never pursued legal action.
Brooks, who recently parted ways with his legal representation, has since filed a motion requesting the court to reconsider the ruling, asserting that his legal rights have been overlooked.
This case falls under the jurisdiction of Brooks v. Colorado Department of Corrections, illustrating a complex intersection of criminal law, civil rights, and the implications of restitution.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to [email protected].