Presentation on theme: " 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."— Presentation transcript:
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.
March 1931-Nine African-Amercan boys were accused of raping two white girls on a train Sentenced to death on one-day trials and the defendants were only given access to their lawyers right before the trial giving no time to prepare a defense Appealed because men were not given adequate legal counsel Ruling overturned because men were not given “fair, impartial and deliberate trial”, denied right of legal counsel, and were tried in a court where qualified members of their race were excluded. Determined that in capital trial a defendant must be given access to counsel if requested as part of due process of law
Ernesto Miranda was arrested on robbery charges. Admitted to raping a girl. In court, evidence was given in form of confession and proper identification of Miranda by the victim. Miranda did not request an attorney and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years for each charge. Chief Justice Earl Warren gave majority opinion The court ruled that the police should have informed Miranda of his privilege against self-incrimination under the 5 th Amendment and his right to an attorney which is stated in the 6 th Amendment. Therefore Miranda’s statement during the interrogation were null. 5-4 decision overturned that of the Arizona Supreme Court Changed law enforcement: a police procedure must begin with the suspect being informed of his or her rights known as the Miranda Rights
1965 Pointer was arrested on robbery charge and brought before a state judge for a preliminary hearing. The witness testified but Pointer had no cousel and did not cross- examine. He was tried and found guilty despite the fact that he was denied the right of confrontation and a transcript of testimony was used as evidence. The ruling was reversed based on the grounds that the 6 th Amendment includes the right of cross-examination which is necessary for a fair trial. Also, the transcript was proof of a denial of the right of confrontation. The 6 th Amendment guarantees that in criminal persucutions, the accused should be given the right to be confronted with the witness.
1966 Convicted of Second Degree Murder Bailiff made prejudice remarks While the remarks of the bailiffs on the defendants guiltiness were prejudice, they did not influence the jury and cause his trial to be “unfair.” His state court promise of a new trial was reversed The bailiff influenced the jury by showing his opinion to him. This was argued against his right to an impartial jury since the bailiff was not presented in front of the defendant. The jury can be influenced by outside opinions and there is no right violated by doing this.
1967 Petitioner was charged with a fatal shooting The petitioner in this case was denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor because the State arbitrarily denied him the right to put on the stand a witness who was physically and mentally capable of testifying to events that he had personally observed, and whose testimony would have been relevant and material to the defense. The Framers of the Constitution did not intend to commit the futile act of giving to a defendant the right to secure the attendance of witnesses whose testimony he had no right to use. The judgment of conviction must be reversed. Conviction was reversed. He was denied his right in the sixth amendment of compulsory process in finding a witness. We have not previously been called upon to decide whether the right of an accused to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, guaranteed in federal trials by the Sixth Amendment, is so fundamental and essential to a fair trial that it is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At one time, it was thought that the Sixth Amendment had no application to state criminal trials. That view no longer prevails, and, in recent years, we have increasingly looked to the specific guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to determine whether a state criminal trial was conducted with due process of law. We have held that due process requires that the accused have the assistance of counsel for his defense, that he be confronted with the witnesses against him, and that he have the right to a speedy and public trial.
Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez, was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana in Missouri. Court denied his choice of counsel, Joseph Low. In a 5-4 decision, Court ruled the conviction was overturned due to deprivation of defendant’s right to choice of counsel. However, they ruled that Gonzalez-Lopez was not prejudiced and that error was “structural” and should be subject to harmless error analysis. Dissent argued that harmless error analysis should be applied and that the choice of counsel being denied should not lead to automatic reversal. Argued that Court should follow Congressional directive to apply harmless error analysis.
Cartoon makes fun of Court’s ruling that ruling is reversible if defendant does not get who they want for counsel. The absurdity that an antelope would be chosen mocks that it was preposterous that Gonzalez-Lopez verdict was overturned based on the fact that the person he wanted to counsel was not permitted even if it had no effect on the ruling.
Pokes fun at the fact that defendant has right to counsel according to the 6 th Amendment no matter how low-quality the counsel is. It doesn’t matter how poor the defendant is, counsel must be provided.
United States Vs. Carll 1881 Powell vs. Alabama Nov. 7 1932 Gideon vs. Wainwright March 18 1963 Pointer vs. Texas Aug. 5 1975 Miranda vs. Arizona June 13, 1966 Parker vs. Gladden Dec. 12 1966 Washington vs. Texas June 12 1967 Strunk vs. United States June 11 1973 Notice of accusation Right of legal counsel Counsel must be provided to those who cannot afford Cross- examiniaton necessary Rights must be read to accused before interrogation Right to impartial jury Compulsory process to find witness Right to speedy trial