In the English legal system it is possible to award "costs" to the defendant when they are innocent - or to the prosecutor when the defendant is found guilty...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section14/chapter_o.html

The Court can order the defendant to pay such costs as it thinks "just and reasonable". The Practice Direction states that an order should be made where the defendant has the means to pay.

It did happen in real life but 41 years ago in 1966. The TV show was "Power, Privilege and Justice" on Court TV. Yes it is a true story with video from the case.

Here is the show.

The Candy Scandal
When a small town Southern belle named Candy Mossler married the millionaire banking magnate Jacques Mossler, it seemed to be a Cinderella story come true. Of course, after she engaged her nephew, Melvin, in a steamy affair, and Jacques turned up dead, it was safe to say that the fairy tale had soured. When Candy and Melvin were arrested for murder, the media circus that exploded around the case was commensurate with any high profile murder case that happened to include millions of dollars, illicit sex and the hint of incest. But atypical for a case like this was the extraordinary work of legendary defense attorney Percy Foreman. Despite all the evidence pointing towards the young couple’s guilt, could Foreman get them acquitted? TV-14

http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/dunne/episodes/the_candy_scandal.html

Defendants: Candace Mossier and Melvin Lane Powers
Crime Charged: Murder
Chief Defense Lawyers: Henry Carr, Percy Foreman, Walter E. McGwinn, Marian Rosen, Harvey St. Jean, and Clyde Woody
Chief Prosecutors: Richard E. Gerstein, Arthur E. Huttoe, and Gerald Kogan
Judge: George E. Schulz
Dates of Trial: January 17-March 6, 1966
Verdict: Not guilty

SIGNIFICANCE: Millions of dollars were at stake in this trial, one of the most sensational in years. There was talk of sexual variations, suspected contract-killers, and police corruption in this tale of greed and brutal murder.

For 12 years Candace and Jacques Mossier lived together in seeming harmony. Mossier, a multimillionaire Houston, Texas, businessman, lavished attention and money on his beautiful wife and was rewarded with her apparent devotion, until 1961. In that year, Melvin Powers, Candy Mossler's 20-year-old nephew, came to live with the couple. Not long afterwards, according to Mrs. Mossler's testimony, Jacques Mossler was struck down by a mysterious illness that left him a homosexual. Shattered by this discovery, Candy Mossler turned to her sister's son for companionship, despite their 21-year age difference. When Jacques Mossler found out, he fired Powers from the company and moved to Miami, Florida.

Candy Mossler and Melvin Powers remained in Houston until the summer of 1964, when she took her four adopted children to visit her husband in Florida. Once there, she began chauffeuring the children on a series of suspicious midnight car rides. On June at 1:30 A.M. she drove them to a nearby hospital emergency room. Just minutes later, someone broke into the Mossler household, struck Jacques Mossler over the head and stabbed him 39 times. The murder time was established by neighbors who heard loud barking from the MossIer's dog, and cries of "Don't! Don't do that to me!" A "dark-haired man in dark clothing" was also seen fleeing. Police believed that man was Melvin Powers, acting in collusion with Candy Mossler. The couple was charged with murder 12 months later.

Jury selection began January 17, 1966, and took several days. At its conclusion Arthur E. Huttoe presented the state's case against Candy Mossier and Melvin Powers, detailing a "sordid, illicit, love affair." The motive, Huttoe said, was money: with her husband out of the way, Candy Mossier would inherit millions plus control of his business.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3145/Candace-Mossier-Melvin-Lane-Powers-Trial-1966.html

snort

Hey that is what the web site says. Shrug

My uncle left me a push-bike and a bookcase.

Some guys have all the luck.

Graeme

@ Graham, and an 'oh yeah, I wasn't snorting at you' to CyberGuy

Maybe the CDC should investigate that illness.

LA Times reported that out of 2 million cases they reviewed about 1500 were of similar cases to Paris Hilton. Average time in jail for those cases was 4 days BUT for Female non violent first time offenders they were booked and then released with NO JAIL TIME.

Paris Hilton is serving the same amount of time as violent offenders in Drug abuse cases and assult cases.

In other words the LA Times concluded that Paris Hilton is being punished more harshly BECAUSE she is a celebrity.

This is what I have been saying all along. Glad the LA Times agrees with me.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-paris15jun15,0,863712.story?coll=la-home-center

Hilton will do more time than most, analysis finds
By Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers
6:56 AM PDT, June 14, 2007


Paris Hilton will end up serving more time behind bars than the vast majority of inmates sent to L.A. County Jail for similar offenses, according to a Times analysis of jail records.

Whether Hilton received special treatment from the Sheriff's Department has become the subject of much debate since Sheriff Lee Baca last week allowed the hotel heiress to go home after less than four full days in jail, despite a promise that she would serve 23 days of a 45-day sentence.

The Times analyzed 2 million jail releases and found 1,500 cases since July 2002 that — like Hilton's — involved defendants who had been arrested for drunk driving and later sentenced to jail after a probation violation or driving without a license.

Had Hilton left jail for good after four days, her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60% of those inmates.

But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced that she would serve the full 23 days. That means that Hilton will end up serving more time than 80% of other people in similar situations. (She was transferred late Wednesday from the Twin Towers jail in downtown L.A. to a women's jail in Lynwood).

The findings came as some critics accused Baca of showing favoritism to Hilton and as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors launched an investigation into whether the multimillionaire received special treatment because of her wealth and fame.

The data also underscore the profound effect of the Sheriff's Department's early-release program, which sets inmates free before their sentences are up to ease overcrowding.

Before the early-release program began in 2002, inmates with cases similar to Hilton's were sentenced to terms that amounted to an average of 23 days, the same as Hilton is expected to serve. They actually served 20 days. After the program began, the average term was 14 days, with inmates actually serving an average of four days.

Because of the high media interest, Hilton was one of only a few inmates whose premature release received publicity — and the judge who originally sentenced her noticed. She is believed to be the first inmate in years who actually was sent back to jail to serve more of her term.

"Twenty-three days would be considerably more than the average person given her sentence would actually serve," said Stan Goldman, professor of criminal law and procedure at Loyola Law School. "The jails are so overcrowded that even though overcrowding is not the reason for her release, it colors every release decision from the jails system."

Baca's release of Hilton because of undisclosed medical problems touched off a storm of protest. Last year, the department released only three inmates on medical grounds, a spokesman said.

One of the most vocal critics, civil rights activist Najee Ali, said Wednesday that Hilton ought to be released if inmates sentenced for similar crimes were serving less time. He continued to criticize Baca's decision to cite medical problems for the release, but added that only dangerous offenders should serve their full sentences given the jail's need to limit overcrowding.

"Clearly, her violation is not as serious, so she should be released," said Ali, director of Project Islamic Hope. "The rules of fairness should be applied equally."

Hilton was sentenced to 45 days for violating probation on alcohol-related, reckless-driving charges from an incident in September. Police stopped her while she was driving during the period that her license was suspended.

If Hilton does serve the 23 days, she will have done about the same amount of time as 4,000 inmates who since 2002 had been charged with assaults, as well as more than 1,800 charged with burglary, more than 2,600 charged with domestic violence and nearly 11,000 charged with drug violations.

Over the last five years, more than 200,000 inmates have been released early. Baca started the releases during a budget crunch that he said left him no choice but to shut large portions of the nation's largest county correctional system. Though economic times have since improved, a federal court has ordered his department to reduce chronic overcrowding in the jails, hampering efforts to keep inmates longer.

The Times' analysis of jail releases found that more than 60% of those with cases similar to Hilton's walked free after serving less than half their time. Under the department's current guidelines, Hilton probably would have served even less time. Most nonviolent female offenders sentenced to less than 90 days are released immediately.

"The only special treatment she got — she got more time in jail," Baca said in an interview earlier this week.

(The analysis studied only jail release data and did not take into account other factors that influence individual cases, such as the judge's sentencing record and courtroom behavior of the defendant).

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer made it clear when he sentenced Hilton that she was not to be released early. His comments were included in commitment papers the court sent to the jail.