The Bill of Rights - Sixth Amendment
In honor of the 230th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and week 6, one of the favorites of criminal defense lawyers: the Sixth Amendment!
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 Sixth Amendment contains a lot of the rights which form the basis of our criminal justice system in the United States. This amendment requires that trials be both “speedy and public.” This, unfortunately, does not mean that the trial has to happen on the defendant’s preferred schedule, but it does mean that the State cannot simply hold an individual in custody indefinitely without resolution of his charges. It also requires that his trial be open to the public so that observers can enter and view the proceedings and so that the defendant knows that his trial will be subject to the oversight of his community, should they choose to avail themselves of that opportunity.
The defendant must be advised of the nature of the charges against him. This means he cannot be tried for a charge he hasn’t been advised he has been accused of. He has the right to confront the witnesses against him, which means they are required to come to court and testify openly and he has the right, on his own or through his counsel, to ask them questions relevant to their testimony. He can subpoena his own witnesses to court to testify on his behalf and cannot be prohibited from doing so provided their testimony is relevant. Finally, he has a right to an attorney to represent him and defend his case.
Further reading:
Kaley v. United States, in which the Court answered the question: “Do the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a district court to allow a criminal defendant to challenge the evidence behind her charges in a pretrial hearing when a protective order freezes the assets necessary for the defendant to hire her attorney?” Answer: No. The Defendant does not have a right to use illegally obtained assets to hire an attorney.
Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the Court answered the questions: “(1) Is the mandatory deportation that results from a guilty plea to trafficking in marijuana a "collateral consequence" that relieves counsel of an affirmative duty to advise his client per the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment? (2) Assuming deportation is a "collateral consequence", can counsel's gross misadvice about deportation constitute a ground for setting aside a guilty plea that is induced by that advice?” Answers: (1) No, and (2) not reached because of the answer to (1).
Montejo v. Louisiana, in which the Court addressed the question: “After the appointment of an attorney, does a defendant need to take additional steps to accept the appointment in order to secure the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment?” Answer: Not necessarily.
Hemphill v. New York, in which the Court will address the question: “When, if ever, does a criminal defendant who “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause?”
Hardy v. Cross, in which the Court answered the question: “Did the steps taken to attempt to locate [the witness] satisfy the Confrontation Clause's good faith effort requirement?” Answer: Yes.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, in which the Court addressed the question: “Can a blood-alcohol test admitted without the actual testimony of the person who prepared the results violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause?” Answer: Yes.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which the Court addressed the question: “Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution "testimonial" evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?” Yes.