6th-amendment

The Sixth Amendment: Equitable Treatment For All

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was created to both organize the legal system and help give defendants a fair and legitimate trial. The authors of the amendment created this amendment in response to the disorganized, unjust legal system in effect at the time the Constitution was ratified.  The Amendment gives defendants the right to a trial without unreasonable delay with an unbiased jury, in which the defendant is informed of their accuser and the charges against them. They are also given the right to an attorney either hired personally or by the government if the defendant cannot afford a private lawyer. The Amendment also gives defendants the right to call witnesses.  Among the many rights granted by the Sixth Amendment, “assistance of counsel” and the right to an “impartial jury” have been the most heavily debated in the courts and by scholars. 

In defining the meaning of the right to assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court has looked to the reality of the situation and the consequences to a defendant to determine if constitutional requirements are met. Often, public defense lawyers hired by the government are tasked with hundreds of cases at once, not allowing them to fully research and develop a case for a client. In some situations, public defenders ask their clients to plead guilty for a shorter sentence, even when an innocent verdict is possible, just to save time and effort. In Gideon v. Wainwright, a 1963 Supreme Court case, Clarence Gideon was denied his right to free counsel in a Florida trial for breaking and entering because Florida state law only required that defendants be granted counsel if the death penalty were a possible sentence. The Supreme Court held the Florida law unconstitutional, and concluded that in all trials where a possible sentence could include prison time, the defendant is entitled to “effective” counsel. 

Some scholars today argue that the scope of the Sixth Amendment should be restricted to increase its effectiveness in cases where consequences are the most grave. For example, limiting the right to situations where defendants face prison time of a year or more or potential deportation could increase the effectiveness of public defenders by reducing their caseload. Scholars also suggest that trials outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment be simplified, allowing defendants to represent themselves with minimal assistance from court clerks. These two changes could have the effect of increasing the effectiveness of counsel in consequential cases and enabling defendants to competently defend themselves in simpler situations, both of which would make trials more impartial and equitable for those who cannot afford a private attorney, part of the sixth amendment’s original purpose. 

The Amendment’s right to “impartial jury” has also ignited debate. One often discussed topic is whether juries should know about possible sentences or play a part in sentencing before coming to a verdict. This is extremely important in cases punishable by a long prison sentence, death, or deportation. For these situations, the jury needs to know their true power to further strengthen their “impartiality”, as envisioned by the amendment. However, the Supreme Court has never agreed with this point of view. Scholars cite Padilla v. Kentucky, a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court decided that lawyers must disclose to their clients if a guilty verdict could result in deportation. The court stated that not doing so would be violating the defendant’s right to “effective” counsel. It can be argued that if attorneys not letting their clients know of possible sentences is unconstitutional, then why is the jury exempt from being informed of sentencing so they can correctly understand the consequence of their verdict? Making this change to the interpretation of “impartial jury” in the Sixth Amendment would be effective in further strengthening the amendment’s goal of making trials fair and just for all. 

The VI & VII Amendments

Video

Written Component

The 6th and 7th Amendments are criminal amendments alongside the 5th and 14th Amendments. There were two main reasons why the Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment were created. Firstly, these amendments responded to and strengthened previous British criminal prosecutions where only magistrates and judges would collect evidence and ask questions. Second, it was influenced by the enforcement of the sugar acts, where the British  sent colonials to Vice-Admiralty courts outside the colonies, without juries, and no representation. The Sixth responds to these concerns, creating a court framework so that criminal prosecutions would consist of a jury of peers to eliminate bias and guarantees the accused rights to a speedy, impartial, public trial. Now, the Sixth Amendment is more commonly understood to guarantee the accused rights to an attorney, no matter the cost.

However, this only existed after the Gideon vs. Wainwright court case, where Gideon, denied the right to an attorney after being convicted of a break-in, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and now the right to an attorney is explicitly and widely known to be incorporated within the Sixth Amendment. There are several other occurrences where the Sixth protected the accused’s rights after their right to a speedy trial was violated. For example, Zedner vs. United States is a criminal case where the district court judge convinced JACOB Zedner to waive his right to a speedy trial.

Zedner, four years later, appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that waiving his rights violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment. In the end, all judges ruled in his favor. The Sixth, as demonstrated, is an essential part of the Amendments that protect the rights of the accused and creates a fairer and more impartial criminal prosecution system.

The Seventh Amendment states that both parties have the right to a jury on civil cases that exceed twenty dollars. The second clause of the Seventh states a similar case to the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy. Civil cases will not be re-examined unless according to the standard law rules. Recently, however, the decision to use civil juries has been declining partly because of many negative downsides, including the fact that people are less willing to pay lawyer fees for a jury, jury trials for civil cases are generally more time-consuming for all parties, and State governments can modify the threshold(money needed)until the use of juries in civil cases are allowed.

Since the Seventh Amendment was created to serve as a means of representation, the original purpose of the Seventh Amendment to represent the American people may seem outdated. However, it still must be understood that both the 6th and 7th Amendments are significant to protect and ensure the rights of the accused. Otherwise, accused people would not have rights and face extreme bias and conviction rates within court systems.