Sixth Amendment
Here is the Sixth Amendment simplified, the rights of persons who are accused in the American court system are protected by this fundamental guarantee. It guarantees the right to face witnesses, a prompt and impartial trial, and the availability of legal representation. Examining its fundamental tenets demonstrates its significant influence on the legal system and its continuous function in preserving justice-related ideals.
Sixth Amendment Legal Definition
The Sixth Amendment contains five principles that govern a defendant’s rights in a criminal prosecution: the right to a speedy and public trial; the right to an impartial jury trial; the right to know the charges against oneself; the right to face and cross-examine witnesses; and the right to legal representation.
Speedy & Public Trial
Every single defendant has the right to a speedy trial. Though it does not often address this issue, the Supreme Court has a four-part test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. The four factors that are considered are the defendant’s potential injury due to the delay, the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and whether the defendant has stated their rights.
The Supreme Court has further determined that in situations when a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, the only appropriate course of action is to dismiss the charges completely. There are very rare situations where a court finds that the unique remedy has violated this right. The Supreme Court has decided that there are restrictions on the right to a public trial.
A court may limit access to the proceedings if, for example, the defendant’s right to due process is jeopardized by the trial’s publicized nature. A defendant may also request a closed trial; however, to do so, the defendant must show that there are no other practical options that would guarantee a fair trial and that an open trial would violate their right to a fair trial. Due to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment and the unique circumstances that justify a non-public trial, closed trials are rare.
Impartial Jury
A defendant usually has the right to a jury during a trial. Though many states provide a jury trial regardless of the crime or punishment, a defendant may only be tried by a judge if the offense carries a sentence of six months or less.
A jury must be unbiased in addition to being a right granted to the defendant. This basically means that the venire, or pool from which the jury members are chosen, must fairly reflect a cross-section of the population and that jurors must be impartial.
During the jury-questioning process, called voir dire, both the prosecution and the defense may ask potential jurors questions whose answers might show bias. Jurors who show evidence of bias may be dismissed “for cause.”
Each side also gets a certain number of peremptory challenges, which means that it may dismiss potential jurors for no cause at all. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that peremptory challenges may not be based on race or sex.
Notice of Changes
The government must formally present the allegations to the defendant in order for them to be considered aware of the “nature and cause of the accusation,” as stipulated by the requirement. An indictment, which is a comprehensive summary of the allegations against the defendant, is used in this process for felonies. Typically, the judge will ask the prisoner if they understand the indictment after it has been read aloud in open court.
An information is typically used to charge a misdemeanor. The process is comparable to an indictment; the defendant is given the material in open court.
Both indictments and information must be precise and contain all the details of the offense the offender is accused of according to this constitutional obligation.
Confronting and Calling Witnesses
This section of the amendment is known as the Confrontation Clause. A defendant has the right to face and cross-examine witnesses who are testifying against him or her in order to ensure that due process rights are upheld and that witness statements are obtained in open court rather than through hearsay statements, the veracity of which cannot be determined.
A defendant may also call witnesses to bolster their case. Although most defense witnesses volunteer to testify, defendants have the option to get a subpoena from the court if they are concerned that a witness won’t appear.
Right to an Attorney
Both the Fifth Amendment (through Miranda warnings) and the Sixth Amendment give a defendant the right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment requirement, however, does not “attach” until after the defendant has been charged with a crime.
For instance, following a 24-hour jail stay for burglary accusations, an individual is brought before a court for an arraignment, during which they are informed of the charges against them as well as their legal rights. The person can only have access to legal representation following these court proceedings. He or she does not have the right to counsel prior to that under the Sixth Amendment.
It took a few years until the Supreme Court declared that all defendants had the right to counsel, requiring lower courts to assign counsel to defendants who are too poor to afford one. Even though it is currently pretty much the norm, there is one exception: If no jail time can be given for the crime that the defendant is charged with, he or she has no constitutional right to an attorney. Many states, however, make attorneys available for everyone, even if the crime carries no jail sentence.
The Supreme Court has decided that lawyers must be somewhat effective in their representation because most defendants are provided legal representation. It is challenging to demonstrate that a lawyer was ineffective on behalf of a defendant because lawyers are assumed to have used an efficient trial strategy.
Thus, if a defendant wants to prove that his or her attorney was ineffective, he or she must show that (1) his attorney was so deficient (2) that the deficiency overcomes the presumption of effective trial strategy and (3) that if it were not for the attorney’s deficient conduct, a different result was likely. While cases have been overturned because of ineffective assistance of counsel, the success of such a claim is rare.
Finally, the Supreme Court has decided that a defendant has the right to represent himself in court. However, if the defendant is judged to be mentally ill or incapable of defending themselves, the judge may refuse the motion. The judge must advise the defendant of the risks and drawbacks of self-representation if the defendant requests it.
