Appeal of Bentivegna (Hampton Twp. SD)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding Sixth Amendment jury trial right does not apply to delay in non-capital resentencing and that, while due process analysis applied, Barker test was inapt
• Supreme Court has applied Barker framework to claims brought under the Due Process Clause when the Barker interests are implicated
• “[W]hen all that remains of a case is the imposition of a sentence, the danger of losing witnesses or other evidence needed to mount an adequate defense is minimized, if not eliminated completely.”
• “Although the [Supreme] Court has never directly ruled on [Barker’s] applicability to delays between trial and sentencing, the majority of circuits, including this one, use it for these claims.” (internal citation omitted)
• “[W]hen all that remains of a case is the imposition of a sentence, the danger of losing witnesses or other evidence needed to mount an adequate defense is minimized, if not eliminated completely.”
• “Though the Lovasco line of cases addresses pretrial delays, we find it equally applicable to [delays in resentencing]. As in the time period before the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial attaches, the primary concern after the right ceases to apply is ‘oppressive delay.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).