Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| United States of America |
 This article is part of the series: |
| Preamble |
|---|
| Articles of the Constitution |
| I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII |
| Amendments to the Constitution |
| Bill of Rights I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X Subsequent Amendments |
| Complete text of the Constitution |
| Preamble and Articles Bill of Rights Subsequent Amendments |
|
|
Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that these rights are so fundamental and important that they are protected in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Contents |
[edit] Text
| “ | In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. | ” |
[edit] Speedy and public trial
[edit] Speedy trial
Defendants in criminal cases, under the Sixth Amendment, have the right to a speedy trial. One of the factors recognized by the Court was the length of delay, but the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that some particular time limit must apply. Another factor recognized by the Court was the reason for the delay. The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness. The other factors to be considered are the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right, and the degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused. If it is found that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. A reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.
[edit] Public trial
The requirement that trials be public is not absolute. Trials may be reasonably regulated to avoid publicity that could prejudice a jury. Trials may be closed at the behest of the government only if it shows "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The accused may also request a closure of the trial; in such a case, it must be demonstrated that "first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights."
[edit] Jury
The right to a trial by jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement. Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possible exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist (Lewis v. US, 1996). Proceedings in state juvenile courts do not require juries either.
Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to "a trial by jury as understood and applied at common law, and includes all the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and England when the Constitution was adopted." Therefore, it was held that juries had to be composed of twelve persons and that verdicts had to be unanimous, as was customary in England. When, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court extended the right to a trial by jury to defendants in state courts, it re-examined some of the standards. It has been held that the twelve came to be the number of jurors by "historical accident," and that a jury of six would be sufficient. Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity.
Juries must be, by the terms of the Sixth Amendment, impartial. Firstly, the phrase has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. At voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. The defendant may not challenge a conviction, however, on the grounds that a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if the defendant had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.
Another factor in determining the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected. Venires must represent a fair cross-section of the community; the defendant may establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group and that the underrepresentation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process. Thus, in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that exempted women who had not made a declaration of willingness to serve from jury service, while not doing the same for men.
The Constitution originally required that defendants be tried by juries selected from the state in which the crime was committed. The Sixth Amendment extends the rule by requiring trials to occur in districts ascertained by statute. As the Supreme Court found in Beavers v. Henkel (1904), the place where the offense is charged to have occurred determines the trial's location. Where multiple districts are alleged to have been locations of the crime, any of them may be chosen for the trial. In cases of offenses not committed in any state (for example, offenses committed at sea), the place of trial may be determined by Congress.
[edit] Notice of accusation
A defendant has, under the Sixth Amendment, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. An indictment must allege all of the ingredients of the crime in order. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll (1882) that "in an indictment ... it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished." Vague wording, even if taken directly from a statute, does not suffice.
[edit] Confrontation
The defense, under the Sixth Amendment, must have an opportunity to "confront" and cross-examine witnesses. The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person. The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person actually making the statements. Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not exactly the same as the confrontation clause; hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long-recognized exceptions; for example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable. In the 2004 case of Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court increased the scope of the confrontation clause in trials. Justice Scalia's opinion made any "testimonial" out-of-court statements inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser. "Testimonial" becomes a term of art here, meaning any statements that an objectively reasonable person in the declarant's situation would have deemed likely to be used in court. The most common application of this would come after a declarant made a statement to a police officer, and then that officer testifies about that statement at trial.
The defendant must also be permitted to call witnesses in his favor. If such witnesses refuse to attend, they may be compelled to do so by the court at the request of the defendant. In some cases, however, the court may refuse to permit a defense witness to testify. If, for example, a defense lawyer fails to notify the prosecution of the identity of its witnesses in order to gain a tactical advantage, the witnesses whose identities were undisclosed may be precluded from testifying.
The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses also applies to physical evidence; the prosecution must present physical evidence to the jury, providing the defense ample opportunity to cross-examine its validity and meaning. Prosecution generally may not refer to evidence without first presenting it.
[edit] Counsel
The Sixth Amendment, finally, guarantees the right of defendants to procure the assistance of counsel. The defendant has the right to not only be heard through such attorneys as he pleases but furthermore, the defendant may represent himself. The court may, however, deny the defendant such a right when it is deemed that the defendant is incompetent to waive the right to counsel.
Originally, the clause was not interpreted as requiring the state to appoint counsel where the defendant could not afford to do so. The Supreme Court began to expand the interpretation of the clause in Powell v. Alabama (1932), in which it held, "in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him." In Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. In 1942, when deciding Betts v. Brady, the Court declined to extend this requirement to the state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment unless the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel.
In 1960, the Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held in Hamilton v. Alabama (1961) that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there was no "ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like." Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) explicitly overruled Betts v. Brady, finding that counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases, whether capital or otherwise. Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) and Scott v. Illinois (1979) expanded the right further, guaranteeing counsel in any charge resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment.
[edit] Self-representation
More recently, the Supreme Court has expounded the right to represent oneself, holding first in Faretta v. California 422 U.S. 806 (1975) that the power to choose or waive counsel lies with the accused, and the state can not intrude, even as it later held Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) if the state believed the accused less than fully competent to adequately proceed without counsel.
The circuit courts have narrowed the right to exclude appeal procedures as in Martinez v. California Court of Appeals 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000), and again by reference in US v. Moussaoui (4th Cir. 2003) (No. 03-4162); however, this restriction is new, inconsistent with precedent, and has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court.
[edit] Court cases regarding the Sixth Amendment
- Barker v. Wingo
- Taylor v. Louisiana
- Beavers v. Henkel
- United States v. Carll
- Crawford v. Washington
- Powell v. Alabama
- Johnson v. Zerbst
- Betts v. Brady
- Hamilton v. Alabama
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- Massiah v. United States
- Escobedo v. Illinois
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark
- Fellers v. United States
- Ford v. Wainwright
- Scott v. Illinois
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
[edit] External links
- Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds). (2000). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.
- CRS Annotated Constitution: 6th Amendment
- 6th Amendment at the Populist Party — news and essays related to the Sixth Amendment, at the Populist Party of America
