Attorney disputes 2 restitution rulings

A Utah federal judge stepped outside his bounds, both procedurally and statutorily, when he ordered two criminal defendants to pay hefty amounts of restitution based on the future lost incomes of their victims, defense attorneys told a federal appeals court Tuesday.

Making their arguments by video conference to a three-judge panel from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, the two men challenged U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell's finding that he was required to make the awards under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996.

The May 2004 decision was a "creative look at the statute," Scott Wilson of the Utah Federal Defender Office said Tuesday, and was issued improperly after at least one case had already been finalized.

After sentencing Levangela Bedonie to an 18-month prison term, Cassell reopened the case and ordered the woman to pay $446,665 in future income to the estate of Brian Johnson, who was killed in an April 2002 car accident caused by a drunken Bedonie.

In the same ruling, Cassell ordered Redd Rock Serawop to pay $325,751, the amount he determined 3-month-old Beyonce Serawop would have earned in her lifetime had she not been killed by her frustrated father in November 2002.

Both Wilson and Serawop's court-appointed defense attorney, G. Fred Metos, argued the MVRA does not allow for lost-income awards in the case of death. Rather, they argued, the law calls for such an award in cases in which a victim to a violent crime has suffered bodily injury and is therefore unable to work.

"There's nothing in the statute that expressly authorizes such an award," Metos said.

Members of the three-judge panel did not indicate Tuesday what direction, if any, they were leaning on the issue. They did, however, agree Cassell's ruling is unprecedented.

"It certainly is a unique case," 10th Circuit Judge Stephanie Seymour said. "(And) as I recall, the government thought so early on."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana Hagen agreed Cassell's reading of the MVRA was a unique interpretation of the law, but also the correct one.

That said, Hagen did concede the U.S. Attorney's Office for Utah did not initially agree with Cassell's decision to award lost income in the two cases. In fact, the office originally objected to the proposed move and joined with defense attorneys in arguing the restitution was not appropriate.