Video
Written Component
The Sixth Amendment elaborates on the second section of Article III, and declares that defendants also have the right to a speedy trial by jury, representation by a lawyer, and the right to face the witnesses for the prosecution. This amendment was particularly relevant to the Framers’, as one of the driving forces of the Revolution was the fact that, due to the Sugar Act allowing King George III to hold the colonists on trial in England, they were not given a fair trial.
The Framers’ had to ensure that the people had faith in the American trial system in order for the constitution to be ratified. This is clear in the Federalist Paper Number 51, in which Alexander Hamilton remarks that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists could agree upon the significance of safeguarding the right to trial by jury. The most contentious point of the amendment is how it can be applied to modern elements of the prosecution process, most notably the concept of forensic evidence. While, initially, the right to be presented with the witnesses for the prosecution was not a contentious matter, it has grown significantly more complicated in the world of advancing forensic analysis as well as video testimony.
Stephanos Biblas, a U.S. circuit judge, believes that the sixth amendment does not require the exclusion of forensic evidence from a prosecution case if the coroner or other members of forensic investigations are unable to attend the trial if they have died or are otherwise unable to attend. He emphasizes the fact that forensic reports are a separate matter from police reports, stating that the Confrontation Clause of the sixth amendment was only meant to limit the replacement of live testimony with police reports had thus has no jurisdiction over limiting the use of forensic evidence. Another scholar, Jerry L. Fisher, argues that forensic evidence should be considered similarly to other forms of testimony and thus excluded if the analysts are unable to attend a live trial. He cites the fact that, while forensic evidence is often considered to be objective, the process of forensic analysis can be much more biased than the prosecution presents, leading to a false conviction if the forensic analysts cannot be cross-examined by the defense.
While I sympathise with Biblas’s points surrounding the significance of forensic evidence, I ultimately concur with Fisher that the defendant has the right to have forensic evidence cross-examined. Although not explicitly stated, it is widely accepted that the Sixth Amendment illustrates the implied right of defendants to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Without the cross-examination of defense lawyers, it is too difficult to determine if the conclusions that forensic analysts come to are accurate. The debate surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) illustrates this point well, as it exemplifies that many forensic conclusions are based upon observations of symptoms, such as (in this case) patterns of head trauma. Since 2019, at least 21 people convicted based upon evidence of SBS have been exonerated, demonstrating the fallibility of forensic evidence, and thus the need for cross-examination of forensic analysts should the defendant desire it.