amendment-vi

Amendment VI – Julian Shapiro

Video

Written Component

Amendment VI:

 

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 defence.

 

The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides a set of rights for the accused that are crucial to America’s legal and prosecution process. These rights, since their original uses in the context of the 18th century, have evolved and been interpreted by the Supreme Court. In the late 18th century, cases were most often debated with the prosecutors and defendants themselves. The 6th Amendment built on this, with the purpose of allowing both the prosecuting and defending sides to each present their own arguments and evidence, resulting in a more equal process with less emphasis on the court itself investigating the case. 

 

One of the most significant rights which the 6th Amendment outlines is the right to a “speedy and public trial.” The importance of this right is that it helps provide fairness to the defendant; it creates a swift system preventing the defendant from being held under unproven accusations for long periods of time and making sure all evidence is presented before it is altered or lost. The right generally requires that the case starts within a certain duration of time after the incident, or the defendant can dismiss the case. A “speedy” trial is, however, subjective, and the Constitution does not provide a more specific duration, causing divergent interpretations. It was most significantly debated in the 1972 Barker v. Wingo case. In 1958, Two men, Manning and Barker, who killed a couple were indicted. The state, however, convicted Manning first, as there was more evidence against him, and he would later have testimony to help convict Barker. Barker was finally convicted in 1963, five years after the crime, and claimed he had been denied the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Barker’s claim, saying a “speedy” trial is not firmly defined and depends on the circumstances. In this case, though it was long, there was no prejudice against Barker in the trial and he had not actually requested a faster trial during the case.

 

The right also provides publicity to the trial. The basis of this is that it is open, allowing for more people and media to have opinions on the case, as well as preventing corruption and judicial bias that may occur in a private case. Another right the 6th Amendment provides for the defendant’s benefit is the compulsory process clause, requiring witnesses requested by the defendant to attend the court. Additionally, prosecutors’ witnesses must be “confronted” against the defendant in person, in order to require evidence that can be questioned by the defendant and jury under oath.

 

The final and most debated right described in the 6th Amendment is the assistance of counsel, which guarantees the defendant a lawyer if they wish. Those who can afford to can hire a lawyer of their choice, while those who cannot are entitled to one paid for by the government. The extent of this clause has been debated, most significantly in the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright case. Gideon, who had been the defendant in a state court, requested a lawyer, however was denied the right as it was not a part of the state’s laws for a trial court. The case reached the Supreme Court, who unanimously decided in Gideon’s favor, extending the right mentioned in the 6th Amendment to be extended to defendants state courts. The decision was a milestone in the protection of legal rights, as most cases are in state courts rather than federal ones.

 

The 6th Amendment is a crucial democratic legal right that has been often changed through the Supreme Court. I believe the amendment still needs change, specifically in clearly defining the amount of time in which a trial must start, to better ensure a fair case.

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. 

Charlotte Sleeper – Sixth Amendment

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.

The Sixth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was a response to the multiple factors of the justice system that caused a lack of order and effectiveness in handling criminal cases. There were various issues with the legal process prior to the amendment including a lack of professional police forces and no professional representation for victims and defendants. The author’s motivation for including this amendment in the constitution was to reform certain processes of the justice system with the goal of making it more fair, orderly, and thorough. The Sixth Amendment advocates for new measures around trial, legal representation, and police forces. It outlines a need for individuals to be represented by professional lawyers and judged by a fair and impartial jury. It also emphasizes the importance of procedure in court and sets a standard for effective and comprehensive trials.

One topic of debate around the Sixth Amendment is the idea of defendants being entitled to disclosure of their potential consequences if they include deportation. Scholars Jeffrey L. Fisher and Stephanos Bibas argue for the right to an appointed lawyer being restricted to more serious misdemeanors and ones that can result in severe punishments like deportation in order to relive the burden of public defense lawyers.

The also explain importance of defendants, specifically those who could face deportation depending on the legal route they take, to have the right to an appointed lawyer and an extensive opportunity to understand the potential consequences of a deal and make the best choice for how to move forward. Fisher provides evidence in the form of a court case: Padilla v. Kentucky. The events of this case took place in 2009 and 2010. It consisted of a defendant, Jose Padilla, being sent to a judge based on three counts of drug related crimes and one count of operating a tractor without a weight and distance tax number.

He entered a guilty plea for the three drug count in return for dismissal of the other count. Following this, he filed for post conviction relief on the grounds that he had not been informed of the potential for deportation by his lawyer. His ruling was reversed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and sent for an evidentiary hearing. The ruling was then reversed back by the Kentucky Supreme Court which stated that collateral consequences, and consequences around immigration were not required to be shared by counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

This court ruling illustrates the lack of clarity around the Sixth Amendment, and the contrast in views of that information lawyers should be required to disclose to their clients. This provision has a lack of clarity in some cases, such as this court case, which can connect to themes of inequality for immigrants in the legal system throughout history. I believe that if deportation is a potential consequence of a deal, defendants should be made aware of that because their lawyer should be working in their defense and their best interests completely; and this rule should be implemented in the clause.