Key Points: 

• Bill ends court fees for trials, appeals and public defense

• Proponents say court costs create unequal justice system

• Counties warn revenue loss from bill could strain budgets

Criminal defendants may no longer have to pay for court-appointed counsel, jury trials and appeals if a bipartisan bill passed this session receives a signature from the governor. 

House Bill 2265, sponsored by Rep. Neal Carter, R-San Tan Valley, passed through with sweeping support from both chambers and both sides of the aisle. Its passage marks another legislative effort to curb the practice of shifting costs to defendants. 

“They’re being charged hundreds of dollars just to have a jury trial, they’re being charged hundreds of dollars if they want to appeal their verdict,” Rebecca Gau, executive director for Stand for Children Arizona, said. “It puts a price tage on justice.” 

As the legislation awaits a final say from the governor, counties have braced for a potential impact to their own budgets in anticipation of another revenue stream cut with no appropriations to fill the gap. 

“The issue isn’t whether a particular fee should exist,” Jacob Emnett, legislative director for the County Supervisors Association of Arizona, said in a statement. “The issue is that Arizona has built a court system that relies on fines, fees and county tax dollars, and lawmakers are increasingly reducing court-system revenues without replacing them.” 

Carter introduced House Bill 2265 early in session, with support from Stand for Children Arizona, Justice Action Network and Fines and Fees Justice Center. 

In launching the legislation, Carter said fees due for accessing a trial or an appeal essentially created two justice systems, with one reserved for those “rich enough to pay for access, and another that operates for the rest of us.” 

The effort to remove certain court fees for adult defendants follows a successful push in 2023 to eliminate costs for juvenile defendants. 

Gau said making the case for the adult system differed due to a “little less grace, and to some degree, understandably so.” 

But she noted how the fee-based system can deter a defendant from taking a case to trial and effectively restrict access to the justice system. 

“Essentially your access to ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is dependent upon your income,” Gau said. “You’ve got to be able to have a free and fair chance to prove your innocence in order for us to trust the justice system, and fortunately I think that message made sense to legislators on both sides of the aisle.”

Under the current system, if a defendant requests or requires public defense, county courts first levy a maximum $25 fee to assess whether a defendant is indigent. 

Defendants are then required to repay “a reasonable amount” to the county to reimburse for legal services costs. In deciding a “reasonable amount,” courts take into account a person’s resources and prospective financial burden. 

All funds collected from fees go back into the public defense budget, though state law requires the assessments to “supplement, not supplant” funding for public legal services. 

County courts can also charge jury fees and filing fees. And on appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court charges fees for each filing, appearance, answer and response. 

As introduced, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee projected HB 2265 would result in a $3.7 million reduction in court revenue. 

Emnett noted the state already relies heavily on county governments to fund its court system. 

“The Association believes that as the state makes policy choices that increase court expenses or reduce court revenues, it should appropriate resources to support those decisions rather than simply shifting the burden to the county taxpayer,” Emnett said. 

But Emily King, senior advocacy and campaigns strategist at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, noted the $3.7 million does not take into account the amount of time, manpower and money necessary to collect the $3.7 million. 

“It only told half of the story,” King said. 

King said stakeholders sought information from the counties on how much is being spent to obtain the $3.7 million but only heard back from Maricopa County, which reported collecting no funds from counsel, jury and appeals fees in the past five years. 

“All signs pointed to this not being as big of a budget hit as it looked like on paper,” King said. “Because the cost savings argument was not eliminated or included.”

Proponents noted how the fees can stack up and become an even heavier debt, complicating reentry and undermining the idea of a steady revenue stream for courts. 

“These are folks with the least ability to pay,” Gau said. “So you’re not actually funding these things you think you’re funding.” 

Gau noted, too, the fees cut here have nothing to do with restitution or fees associated with the crime itself and can work to hamper reentry in the process. 

“Philosophically, they’ve paid their fines, they’ve paid their debts, but now they still owe thousands of dollars that keep them hounded by collection agencies,” Gau said. “That means wage garnishment, that means you can’t get an apartment, your credit is screwed. How are we expecting these people to get back on their feet?”

The bill passed on June 10 and is now awaiting a final action from the governor.