Text of the 6th 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.

Speedy Trial
The speedy trial clause states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy...trial... The purpose of the clause is to protect the accused from having a large delay between being indicted on charges and the beginning of the trial. It protects against the unfair imprisonment of a person for a long amount of time without a trial. Most states have a set time that the trial must take place before however the definition of a speedy trial can depend on the situations of the case and reasons for the delay. In the case Barker v. Wingo the United States Supreme Court had to determine if the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial in criminal cases should be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision made was there are four factors that need to be considered when dealing with a claim for a speedy trial infringement. Four Factors Reason for the delay: Neither side can excessively delay a trial for its own advantage however a trial can be delayed for situations such as a change of venue or to locate an absent witness. Length of Delay: The Supreme Court never ruled directly about what length of time is considered unreasonable but did make the decision that when a delay of a more than a year occurs from the date of indictment/arrest to trial it is presumptively prejudicial. Degree of prejudice to the defendant affected by the delay compared to other defendants in similar situations in the same state. Time and Manner the defendant decides to claim infringement of his right. A defendant who causes his own delays for trial cannot later claim his right to a speedy trial was infringed upon because of that delay. Doggett v. United States This Supreme Court case was about the right to a speedy trial in which Doggett was indicted on 1980 on drug charges but left the country before he could be arrested. In 1982 he moved back to the US and led a normal life until a 1988 when the government became aware of him by coincidence. Doggett argued that since it had been 8 years from his indictment to his arrest his right to a speedy trial had been infringed upon. The Supreme Court agreed with him by

ruling that the 8 years was a violating of his 6th amendment rights because the government had been negligent in pursuing him and Doggett was unaware of the indictment until the arrest in 1988.

Public Trial
The right to a public trial is the basic right that guarantees a defendant the right to have their trial be viewed by the public rather than in secret. There are exceptions to the right to a public trial and a judge has the right to rule on this right on a case-to-case basis, meaning this right is not absolute. Regulation of trial can be regulated in exceptional cases. The openness of courts has been ruled to be a presumption, meaning it should be expected but it can be overturned by a motion for closure. Some examples of closures would be in cases of organized crime where jurors would need their identities protected or rape cases where common decency is an issue. The right to a public trial often conflicts with the right to a free press granted by the first amendment. In the case Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court the right to a public trial was challenged when the Press-Enterprise paper tried to obtain a copy of the pre-trial transcript after the trial was over. A murder suspect claimed the media would damage his right to receive a fair trial so he waived his right to a public trial. The motion was granted and the trial proceeded in private. After the trial Press-Enterprise tried to obtain the transcript but was denied by the courts. The Supreme Court then ruled in Presss favor claiming the right to a private trial was over because the release of those documents could no longer hurt the defendants right to a fair trial.

Impartiality and Nature of Juries

The right to a public trial applies to cases where more than 6 months of imprisonment is the penalty for a guilty verdict. Those cases ruled to be petty offenses are usually done using a bench trial. In Patton v United States (1930) it was ruled that a trial by jury includes the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and England when the Constitution was adopted. The precedent set forth by England in the 1700s under the Magna Carta was that juries were composed of 12 members and had to rule unanimously. Based on the Patton ruling those rules now applied to 1900s America. Later under the 14th amendment those rights were extended to states and the amendment was reevaluated. In Williams v. Florida (1970) it was ruled that a jury of 6 was sufficient for the right to an impartial jury to be satisfied. Two years later in Apodaca v. Oregon it was ruled jury unanimity is not required under the 6th amendment. Another important part of the right to an impartial jury is to insure the nature of the jury is a fair cross-section of the community. Juries cannot exclude on distinctive group that may cause the trial to be unreasonable or unfair. The systematic exclusion of a group violates the right to a fair jury because it doesnt represent an accurate cross-section of the community. In Taylor v. Louisiana it was ruled that a law the exempted women from serving on juries was unconstitutional because it did not do the same for men. This means that juries would be made up of mostly men because women could claim exemption from juries.

Vicinage Clause
This clause states that defendants enjoy a trial of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law... The clause basically states the trial needs to take place in the same state and district the crime was committed. The obvious exception to the rule is if the crime took place in an area where it would cause an unfair trial due to publicity and public opinion, then this right made be waived through a motion to change venue. Like the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th amendment this clause does not apply to states. An argument has been made by Professor Brian C. Kalt of Michigan State University that it is conceivable to commit the perfect crime using this clause. The Yellowstone National Park crosses from Wyoming to Idaho. The entire park is the District of Wyoming and the Idaho portion of the park has no residents. Due to these facts there can be no jury composed of jurors in the state of Idaho and district of Wyoming, thus causing a mistrial.

Notice of Accusation
Before a criminal trial a defendant has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him, this process is called an indictment. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876) it was ruled charges brought against a criminal need to be precise enough a defendant could accuse double jeopardy if the charges were brought up in another prosecution. A court could not, for example, indict someone of murder. Instead they must inform the defendant of first degree or second degree murder so the defendant cant subsequently be charged with first degree murder after being found innocent of second degree.

Confrontation Clause and Compulsory Process

For a trial to be fair it is necessary to allow the defendant to cross-examine witnesses against them. The confrontation clause is related to the admission of hearsay evidence because those witnesses cannot be cross-examined thus their credibility could not be determined. By protecting the right to cross-examine it gives the defendant the opportunity to fight accusations made by the prosecution. The confrontation clause also applies to physical evidence. All physical evidence must be given to the defense with ample time for it to be examined. Without this clause prosecutors could hypothetically put witnesses on the stand and evidence in the courtroom without any challenge from the defendant, causing a lopsided trial. Just as defendants are given the rights to cross examine the states witness they also have the right to call their own witnesses under the compulsory process. The defense must allow the prosecution to cross-examine their witnesses in the same way they can cross-examine the prosecutions. They must give the prosecution ample time to review this witness otherwise the defenses witness can be precluded from testifying.

Assistance of Counsel
Although the basis of the right to counsel has always been that the accused have the right to an attorney it has gone through many phases throughout its history. In 1932 Powell v. Alabama gave defendants in capital cases where the defendant cannot afford counsel it can be assigned to them by the state. The Supreme Court then expanded that right to all federal cases in Johnston v. Zerbst (1938). Four years later in 1942, Betts v. Brady ruled the Johnston ruling did not extend to state rights accept for in special circumstances. Slowly the right to counsel was introduced into the state level. In 1961 Hamilton v. Alabama gave defendants facing the death penalty in state court the right to council. Gideon v. Wainwright In one of the biggest Supreme Court cases to date Gideon v. Wainwright overturned Betts v. Brady and required states to provide council for all defendants who cannot afford it by themselves. Charles Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a poolroom after a witness saw him after the break-in with a wine bottle and money in his pockets. Gideon asked for council in the case but was denied because his case was not a capital offense. He was then forced to represent himself in court because he could not afford a lawyer. He was found guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. During his sentence Gideon researched his rights an appealed to the Supreme Court to hear his case about his right to council. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it and ruled in his favor, causing all defendants to be given right to council if they cannot afford one. Gideon was given a retrial with a lawyer who then discredited the witness who saw Gideon outside with the wine and money. After Gideon v. Wainwright the right to attorney was challenged in Scott v. Illinois when Scott claimed he was denied the right to an attorney even though the maximum penalty for his shoplifting crime was a year in prison. In Argersinger v. Hamlin it was ruled that any case resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment required counsel to be provided. Since Scott had only been fined $50 the crime did not end in actual imprisonment and could not be seen as infringement of the right to counsel. Brewer v. Williams (1977) set up the privilege of the defendant to be given council not just at trial but once adversary proceedings have started. This means the defense has the right to council at preliminary hearings and interrogations as well as in subsequent appeals to the trial.

Self-Representation
Just as defendants have the right to council they also have the right to represent themselves. This means the government cannot force a defendant to have a lawyer and may allow them to defend themselves if they waive the right to council. Self-representation is also known as Pro Se legal representation which is Latin for on ones own behalf. Through cases such as Godinez v. Moran the Supreme Court has ruled the state/federal government can require some defendants to have representation if they are determined to be less than fully competent to defend themselves. Many believe that those representing themselves at trial may not cause defendants to be less capable of defense. According to an assistant professor at Georgia School of Law

Of 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50% were convicted on any chargefor represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75% of defendants were convicted of some charge.