{"id":"qdc3513d076a6f0d40eca","batch_id":"batch-000122","seq":236,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-06-19T04:32:27.107Z","text":"一、当前局面的本质：District Judge 在玩“Waiting Game”\n你说得非常对。\n当二巡手里有平行 mandamus（Tony、Chunk Chyi、Anna、蒋帮芝等）或者紧急 stay 动议时，地区法官（Torres）最常见的策略就是什么都不做。\n原因：\n•  如果她现在强行推进量刑程序，万一二巡后来下令要求她先解决某些程序问题（docket、听证、补记录），她之前的量刑就可能被推翻。\n•  如果她现在什么都不做，把球踢给二巡，等二巡表态后再行动，风险最低。\n•  这就是典型的 “Waiting Game” —— 用时间把压力转嫁给上级法院。\nTony 6月17日那份动议里反复强调的“一个多月没有任何程序动作”，其实就是在精准攻击 Torres 的这个策略。\n二、宪法红线：Betterman v. Montana + United States v. Ray\n虽然 Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016) 明确说 Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Clause 不适用于量刑阶段，但最高法院同时指出：","edited":false,"reply_to":"q9e1755109713c977b785","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdc3513d076a6f0d40eca","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9e1755109713c977b785","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000122","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000122","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdc3513d076a6f0d40eca","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdc3513d076a6f0d40eca/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qdc3513d076a6f0d40eca","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q7a5b00955bd612a2bd96","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-06-19T04:29:55.120Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7a5b00955bd612a2bd96"},{"id":"qde82a693fe79f6ab91f2","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-06-19T04:31:45.465Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qde82a693fe79f6ab91f2"},{"id":"q3bd35a15374531baf909","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-06-19T04:32:24.586Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3bd35a15374531baf909"},{"id":"q62f692193338a7d1fcf2","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-06-19T04:32:41.382Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q62f692193338a7d1fcf2"},{"id":"q9c278aa3d1f06b55dc08","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-06-19T04:32:55.505Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9c278aa3d1f06b55dc08"},{"id":"qd6ad130833c1919ef34b","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-06-19T04:33:01.345Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6ad130833c1919ef34b"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q9e1755109713c977b785","speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-06-19T04:00:58.156Z","text":"* A \"Waiting Game\" for Appellate Guidance: If there is a parallel mandamus petition or emergency stay sitting before the Circuit Court, a District Judge will often intentionally halt all district-level activity. They do nothing because they are waiting to see if the higher court is going to issue a ruling that strips them of jurisdiction or changes the legal landscape.\n2. Controlling Precedents: The Constitutional Limits of Delay\nUnder federal law, a judge cannot delay a sentencing indefinitely. The Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have established clear boundaries regarding what constitutes a prejudicial or unconstitutional sentencing delay.\nThe Constitutional Standard: Betterman v. Montana (2016)\nThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016) that the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause does not apply to post-conviction sentencing delays. Instead, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protects defendants against excessive, unreasonable delays in sentencing. If a delay is found to be reckless, purposeful, or cause severe prejudice to the parties (such as keeping a defendant incarcerated under a cloud of unresolved errors), it violates constitutional Due Process.\nThe Analytical Framework: United States v. Ray (2d Cir. 2009)","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9e1755109713c977b785"}}