« Can and will Prez Obama effectively help get a federal sentencing reform bill to his desk? | Main | "Are debtors' prisons returning?" »
December 6, 2015
Supreme Court takes up Montana case to resolve applicability of Sixth Amendment speedy trial right to sentencing
The major matter among the cases that the Supreme Court decided to take up on Friday concerns the authority of the Puerto Rican government to deal with its debt crisis. But as this post from Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog notes, the undercard cert grants are still noteworthy:
The Court granted review in three other cases on Friday, involving: the application of the constitutional right to a speedy trial to a follow-up sentencing proceeding (Betterman v. Montana); a definition of when a government contractor has filed false reimbursement claims under the False Claims Act (questions 2 and 3 in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar); and a claim for attorney’s fees for an employer when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not carry out its assigned duties before a lawsuit is filed (CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC). Those cases, too, are likely to be argued in March.
The cert petition in Betterman is available at this link, and here is how it presents the question:
Whether the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause applies to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution, protecting a criminal defendant from inordinate delay in final disposition of his case.
This question has divided lower courts, but I am not so sure having it answered either way will really impact sentencing practices much. Defendants can, and regularly do, waive and forfeit Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights so having such a right apply at sentencing may not practically lead to much more than just some more formal waiver practices. Conversely, defendants surely have some residual Fifth Amendment Due Process right not to suffer too much prejudice from excessive delays before sentencing, so defendant already have and will continue to have some procedural protections in this arena even without the Sixth Amendment getting involved.
That all said, it is always exciting and interesting when SCOTUS takes up a constitutional sentencing issue that has split both state and federal courts. And there could be some "sleeper" elements emerging in this case through briefing and argument that could make it a bigger deal. And, if nothing else, the case has the benefit of a cool party name that will keep me humming one of my (many) favorite Pearl Jam songs.
December 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM | Permalink
Comments
This case irritates me. A facial reading on the 6th amendment would suggest that the right to a speedy trial does NOT impart a right to a speedy sentence. The historical backdrop of the 6A also supports this because the primary concern at the founding was the cloud of suspicion that hung over the innocent once charged by the government, without any means to clear one's reputation.
Having said that, this case is absolutely an abuse of power by the judge. He treated the prisoner like his little sex doll and screwed him every which way except loose. This judge seems to have forgotten that human being are human and frankly I think that asshole needs to be impeached.
So I tend to think the 5A is the better vehicle here conceptually but....I wouldn't cry too much if it went the other way.
Posted by: Daniel | Dec 6, 2015 4:07:44 PM
This case irritates me. A facial reading on the 6th amendment would suggest that the right to a speedy trial does NOT impart a right to a speedy sentence. The historical backdrop of the 6A also supports this because the primary concern at the founding was the cloud of suspicion that hung over the innocent once charged by the government, without any means to clear one's reputation.
Having said that, this case is absolutely an abuse of power by the judge. He treated the prisoner like his little sex doll and screwed him every which way except loose. This judge seems to have forgotten that human being are human and frankly I think that asshole needs to be impeached.
So I tend to think the 5A is the better vehicle here conceptually but....I wouldn't cry too much if it went the other way.
Posted by: Daniel | Dec 6, 2015 4:07:44 PM
"[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial . . . ."
What does "trial" mean? Why someone is "tried" does it stop once a verdict is given but no sentence? I reckon the usual case here is where the trial doesn't begin for a long time but it's possible it starts but then goes into some sort of limbo too.
To me, a "trial" very well can reasonably be argued to be the whole affair until the sentence -- which can in some cases be probation or a long term in prison -- is handed down & the whole affair is done. If a person has a long sentence hanging over his or her head, it doesn't seem trivial & can see how there would be historical concern.
At any rate, in 1957 the USSC assumed the point was true, again making it sound at least reasonable:
We will assume arguendo that sentence is part of the trial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. The time for sentence is of course not at the will of the judge. Rule 32 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the imposition of sentence "without unreasonable delay."
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16063243386318217426&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[7]
The lower courts are split on the matter. At any rate, it's a state ruling, so rests on the Due Process Clause as a whole anyway.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 6, 2015 10:37:39 PM
Daniel,
So you don't buy the Montana supreme court's statement that every delay in sentencing was of Mr. Betterman's manufacture?
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Dec 7, 2015 12:57:38 AM
@Soronel.
One of my brothers is a physicist. According to him, if ones traces every atom in the universe every person's eyelashes are physically in contact with every star, even millions of light years away. So I asked him if he then believes in astrology. He said, "no, that would be ridiculous."
Posted by: Daniel | Dec 7, 2015 5:55:11 PM
@Soronel.
One of my brothers is a physicist. According to him, if ones traces every atom in the universe every person's eyelashes are physically in contact with every star, even millions of light years away. So I asked him if he then believes in astrology. He said, "no, that would be ridiculous."
Posted by: Daniel | Dec 7, 2015 5:55:12 PM
I thing the court has done a good job on this matter and hopefully they will make more right decision in the future.
Posted by: my-doll | Oct 31, 2016 1:41:36 AM
