Atticus DeProspo, lawyer and a Gates Cambridge Scholar who earned his MPhil from the Institute of Criminology in 2018, is currently serving as merits counsel in Ellingburg v United States before the US Supreme Court. This legal case is challenging the retroactive application of the restitution liability provision under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, while generating discussion around whether the law at issue is criminal or civil.
DeProspo is representing criminal defendant Holsey Ellingburg Jr, who initiated this case in 2023. He was sentenced to nearly 27 years in prison in 1996 for bank robbery. At the time, US law required that he make restitution payments for up to 20 years after his judgement. However, right before his sentencing, Congress enacted the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. Under this new law, it was possible to enforce restitution up to 20 years after a criminal defendant’s release from prison, essentially doubling their restitution liability period.
Having paid approximately $2,000 between 1996 and 2016, the US government still asked Ellingburg to make restitution payments. Following his release from prison in 2022, he challenged the government’s attempt to continue to collect restitution from him on the grounds that the retroactive application of the restitution liability provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act violated the US Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, which prohibits retroactively applying criminal laws. DeProspo was appointed to brief and argue Ellingburg’s appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The US Court of Appeals held that restitution is a civil remedy and is not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The US Supreme Court granted Ellingburg’s petition for a writ of certiorari, with DeProspo representing Ellingburg.
The nature of criminal law
For DeProspo, the MPhil was a “life changing experience” and honed the skills and knowledge he uses in his job. Ellingburg v United States generated debate about an issue he explored while on the MPhil: retribution versus victim compensation.
This debate in criminal justice is centred on whether restitution should be used to deliver a punishment proportionate to their crime, or to make victims whole through compensation. This debate has happened around various different laws in recent years. Ellingburg v United States highlights this debate within the context of the Ex Post Facto Clause, asking whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is a criminal law that imposes a criminal punishment or a civil law that is meant to compensate victims.
DeProspo also praises the MPhil for strengthening many of the broader skills he has taken to his work. He commends its structure as a small and tightly knit group, while consisting of a diverse group of people with a variety of experiences. This was supported by a ‘discussion-centric’ approach to Cambridge and other UK universities, compared to the focus on lectures in many American institutions.
“I felt like it really made me think critically about what I had just read,” he recalls. “Then hearing different people at the table, who had done the same readings but had different thoughts, was thoroughly enjoyable.”
The MPhil also offered a good mixture of teaching and practical research. At the time, DeProspo wanted more experience with the latter.
“It was very appealing to me because I wanted to get some grounding from experts in criminological theory and research methods, before settling on a topic for my thesis during the research part,” he explains.
A voice for everyone
Ellingburg v United States represents a wider focus within DeProspo’s legal work: ensuring individuals who cannot afford a lawyer get adequate legal representation.
“In my current practice, I'm usually representing defendants,” he explains. “They're oftentimes indigent, and so I find it fulfilling that I can use my law degree to help people who otherwise couldn't afford an attorney. This is especially the case in my pro bono work.”
DeProspo believes that it is important for him to advocate for indigent defendants. Doing so ensures that the justice system is held to account, and individuals have a voice.
“It’s important to recognise that the government has unlimited resources and manpower to pursue the cases that it wants,” says DeProspo. “Whereas a lot of defendants have difficulty affording a lawyer, unless they're a major corporation."
Read Gates Cambridge's press release on this story here.