Restitution deadline and lawyer rights
Hackett v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Andrew Hackett asked the Supreme Court to review whether a judge could order restitution (payments to victims) after a 90-day deadline without making clear beforehand that some restitution would be ordered, and whether he had a right to a lawyer for a plausible new-trial motion filed during his appeal.
- Who it affects
- Hackett did not receive Supreme Court review of these questions; the Court did not decide either one.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide either question.
The case came from the Ninth Circuit and involved federal restitution rules and a defendant's right to counsel during an appeal.
Question presented
1. Whether a district court may order restitution after a 90-day deadline set in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) when the district court did not make clear prior to the deadline that it was going to order some restitution. 2. Whether a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel for a colorable motion for new trial filed while his direct appeal is pending.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.