Friends and neighbors,
Being accused and charged with a crime is no light matter. But imagine if the judge allowed your trial to drag on for months, or that you were not allowed to see the evidence or cross-examine the witnesses accusing you of the crime. Like the Fifth Amendment’s protections discussed last week, our Constitution’s Sixth Amendment protects you against these abuses and others.
The Sixth Amendment reads:
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 defense.
Speedy and Public Trial
A criminal defendant in either state or federal court has the right to a speedy and public trial. The U.S. Supreme Court, through its Barker v. Wingo (1972) decision, gave us a four-part balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has asserted their right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.
For a defendant whose speedy trial right has been violated, the Supreme Court, in the Strunk v. United States (1973) decision, noted that the only remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal of the charges.
Additionally, the right to a public trial includes not only the trial itself but also to certain pretrial hearings and the jury selection. Generally, the press and public have a First Amendment right to attend these hearings and trial, even if both the defendant and prosecution wish to keep the trial closed.
Jury Trial
The Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial is not unconditional and has its restrictions. For example, in the McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) decision, the Supreme Court held that juveniles are not afforded the right to a jury trial, as juvenile cases are civil proceedings.
Additionally, while this amendment also states that the defendant has a right to a jury trial in all criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has interpreted that this right only applies to serious offenses, not petty offenses. The distinction between these types of offenses is dependent upon the maximum punishment available for the offense or by the nature of the offense.
In the Baldwin v. New York (1970) decision, the Supreme Court also ruled that a serious offense is one in which imprisonment for more than six months is authorized. An exception, however, is that a defendant is not provided the benefit of a jury trial when they are prosecuted for multiple petty offenses in one proceeding.
Confrontation Clause
The Confrontation Clause protects a defendant’s right in a criminal prosecution to confront adverse witnesses. What may seem like a minor part of the Sixth Amendment, however, has been the subject of many Supreme Court cases. This right serves two important purposes: (1) allow the defendant and the judge or jury to observe the demeanor of the testifying witness, and (2) the defendant can cross-examinate the witness testifying against themselves.
In 2004, the Supreme Court held, through the Crawford v. Washington decision, that prior testimony at a prior judicial proceeding may not be admitted if the person who originally testified is unavailable. An exception to this is if the defendant had an opportunity to cross examine that person at the time of the testimony.
The Confrontation Clause is even implicated when statements are made to police after an ongoing emergency has ended and the primary purpose of the statements are to establish or prove facts. These statements are treated similarly to testimony at a previous trial. Therefore, the defendant has the right to confront the witness who made those statements, even though they were not made in court.
Assistance of Counsel
The right to an attorney in the Sixth Amendment applies during all critical stages of a criminal prosecution, including the trial. A defendant who is entitled to a court-appointed lawyer at trial, but is not given one, will have their conviction automatically reversed. This would even apply to situations where there is no showing of unfairness in the proceedings. In the Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) decision, the Supreme Court held that the right to an attorney is a fundamental right that also applies to state action. Even a defendant who cannot afford an attorney is entitled to one because it is essential to a fair trial and due process of law.
A defendant not only has the right to an attorney, but the right to an effective, competent attorney. The claim that one’s court-appointed attorney was ineffective, however, is a difficult one to establish. A defendant’s conviction can be reversed if they can show that the attorney’s performance was deficient, and the results of the trial or proceeding would have been different due to the attorney’s deficiency. The right to counsel can be waived so long as the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives the right, and they are deemed competent to defend themselves.
Next week, I will write about the Seventh Amendment, which clarifies when the right to a jury in a civil trial is implicated as well as a key protection of certain jury determinations.
I enjoy hearing from you about our Constitution and the rights it affords us. You need to know your rights to use them. There is no other country that has such a strong constitution. You can call me at 651-296-5655 or send me an email at sen.mary.kiffmeyer@senate.mn. Please also take time to talk with others about our timeless and incredibly valuable Constitution that is available to you and in use every day of your life.
Sincerely,
Mary