The Supreme Court Monday decided that the Federal District Courts did not lose jurisdiction to set restitution ninety days after sentencing despite a ninety day deadline in the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act provides that, if the information is available the court shall set the amount of restitution at sentencing. If ten days before sentencing their is insufficient information to set the amount of restitution the court shall set a date within ninety days after sentencing for the setting of of restitution. It makes provision for increasing the amount of restitution if the victim later discovers further losses.

In the case of Brian Russell Dolan who was convicted of assault with serious bodily injury the court did not have sufficient information at sentencing to set restitution but it did recognize the need to set an amount. Prior to the conclusion of the 90 day period the probation department provided a proposed amount of restitution and the court set a hearing date, without explanation or objection, for a couple of months after the ninety day period ended.

The Supreme Court ruled that the District Court continues to have jurisdiction after the ninety day period ends. It based its holding on six points. First, the statute does not set a specific consequence for violating the ninety day rule. Second, the statute places considerable emphasis on the need for restitution. Third, the drafters of the statute placed more importance on the complete payment of restitution than on the need for finality in sentencing. Fourth, to make the ninety day limit jurisdictional would injure victims who have no control over the dates. Fifth, the Supreme Court has found that other statutes, while setting dates do not remove the power of the courts to act after similar deadlines. Finally, the defendant, at least in this case could have requested an earlier hearing.

The dissent, by Chief Justice Roberts claims that the court does not have the power to alter the clear words of the statute. But requiring strict adherence to the statute would put the court in the strange position of not being able to set restitution after the ninety day period but still being able to assess restitution for damages found by the victim, but unknown at the time of sentencing. Dolan claimed that he would be seriously injured by the failure to follow the language of the statute. For example that might extend indefinitely the period before he could file his appeal. But the court indicated that a case could be final and the appeal could be filed before the setting of restitution.