Was the removal of Jamie Mueller from the pretrial diversion program because of her inability to pay selective prosecution in violation of the Due Process Clause?

Question

Jamie Mueller was charged with being a minor in a tavern, a misdemeanor. At her initial hearing, she was found to be indigent and was appointed a public defender. A few days later the prosecutor offered to allow Jamie to participate in the prosecutor's pretrial diversion program. She accepted, admitted guilt, agreed to commit no crime during the next two years, agreed to attend a behavior modification class, and agreed to pay an $80 class fee and a $150 user fee, for a total of $230. Jamie believed she could pay the fees initially but then was unable to pay. The prosecutor sought to withdraw the pretrial diversion agreement on the basis of her inability to pay the fees. Jamie requested the trial judge to reinstate her in the program. The judge agreed that Jamie believed she could pay the fees initially. The prosecutor's practice and policy to deny persons unable to pay the fees entry into the pretrial diversion program or to removed them if they could not pay. The judge found that paying the fees as a condition of participation was a rational requirement and did not violated the United States Constitution. Indiana law authorized prosecutors to withhold prosecution of misdemeanor charges for those who would enter pretrial diversion programs; the statute authorized but did not require participants to pay fees.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Yes