Due Process Clause Case Summary

Brandon Betterman, the petitioner in this case, pleads guilty to jumping bail after not appearing for his court date on charges of domestic assault. Between his conviction and his sentencing, Betterman waited fourteen months due to a delay within the institution (Betterman). He believes that fourteen months should be taken off of his sentencing. This began the ultimate constitutional debate concerning what he considered his right to a speedy trial. The ruling claimed by the Montana Supreme Court stated the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause does not apply to the post conviction and pre-sentencing delay (Betterman).
The constitutional issue that arose in the court’s ruling in this case is centered on the first and second phases, out of the three that unfold in a criminal proceeding. The phases include; decision to arrest and charge, innocent until proven guilty, and imposition of the sentence (Betterman). Betterman argued violation or unfairness of the checks and balances associated with the first and second phases. The statute of limitations provides protection against a delay in the arrest and charge phase. The Due Process Clause provides a safety net …show more content…
Her separate emphasis lies within the idea that the main question of this case is open. Her main support for her concurring opinion concerns the courts four factors in the Barker v. Wingo case that determined violations of the Due Process Clause. These four factors include: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of right, and prejudice to the defendant (Betterman). The Baker test, as so it is called, was not used in the Betterman v. Montana case. Justice Sotomayor argues that the four factors capture the concerns of the case and would be efficient in deciding differences and validity in trial and sentencing delays (Betterman). Justice Sotomayor considers there should be investigation to the Due Process Clause delayed sentencing