Betterman v. Montana

WHAT HAPPENED:  Defendant was convicted of skipping a sentencing hearing, but sentencing was deferred to a later date.  That “later date” was 14 months after his initial guilty plea.

WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:  Good question!!  Although the system tries to get your sentencing together sooner rather than later, the classic “speedy trial” rights that you hear about in the Constitution don’t apply to the time period between conviction and sentencing.  This case asks whether the Court is going to apply Speedy Trial principles to sentencing (probably not), or create a Due Process requirement that requires a time limit between conviction and sentencing (also unlikely).

WHAT IS THE RULING:  This case is not yet decided.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS:  This brings up an interesting issue of what the harm is in this matter.  For one, unlike your right to speedy trial, there is far less prejudice in a delay before sentencing, so the ramifications in either direction seem fairly irrelevant.  This also ignores the fact that most people want as much time before sentencing as possible so they can get their affairs in order before going to prison, so this defendant looking for quicker sentencing could be the legal equivalent of reminding the teacher to give you homework.

ROOT FOR BETTERMAN IF:  You don’t like waiting for things, even long, indeterminate stretches of incarceration.

ROOT FOR MONTANA IF:  Good things come to those who wait.  Except for defendant’s who await sentencing, who are going to prison.

Luis v. US

WHAT HAPPENED:  Luis was arrested on charges of Medicare fraud to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.  As part of her arrest, the FBI froze her accounts, which had a similar tune of millions and millions of dollars.

WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:  Under the 5th and 6th Amendment, criminal defendants are entitled to an attorney as part of their Due Process and Fair Trial rights.  It should be noted; however, those rights only give you an attorney, and not the best attorney or even a good attorney.  Luis argues that the freezing of her accounts denied her rights under the 5th and 6th amendment because she could not afford her attorney of choice.

WHAT IS THE RULING:  This case is not yet decided.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE DECISION:  The ramifications apply more to the concept of asset/civil forfeiture, which is the process under which the government seizes assets usually at the time of your arrest that the State believes are the product of criminal activity.  This practice has recently come under fire due to the fact that getting those assets back is not subject to the same protections a criminal defendant is afforded, and the State can often obtain ownership of the assets because of the complicated procedures that come along with fighting forfeiture.  On the furthest edge of possibility, this case could expand the meanings of a “right to attorney” under the 5th and 6th amendment to include a “right to an attorney of your choice”, but the implications of that seem a bit too far-reaching even for the most liberal of justices.

YOU SHOULD ROOT FOR LUIS IF:  You can ignore the fact that this case involves a millionaire accused of fraud, and instead see that this also applies to people with less assets who are subject to the same forfeiture regulations.

YOU SHOULD ROOT FOR THE US IF:  You favor a basic reading of the Constitution that does not expand the existing rights we have to solve ancillary problems that likely require some form of attention from the Supreme Court.  In other words, you make up at least 4/9ths of the current supreme court.