This is an accepted version of this page
63-701: Sixth Amendment may refer to: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution , part of the Bill of Rights, which sets out rights of the accused in a criminal prosecution Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India , 1956 amendment which empowered the central (federal) government to tax inter-state commerce Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland , ensured that certain adoption orders would not be found to be unconstitutional because they had not been made by
126-513: A juvenile court , which lessens the sentence allowed, but forfeits the right to a jury. Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to "a trial by jury as understood and applied at common law , and includes all the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and England when the Constitution was adopted." Therefore, it
189-477: A capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him." In Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. In 1961,
252-401: A closure of the trial; though, it must be demonstrated that "first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's right to a fair trial." The right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which
315-470: A court Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa , which altered the structure of the judiciary and made a number of other technical changes Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan , which altered the term and age limits on the judiciary Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Sixth Amendment . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change
378-533: A court deems the defendant to be incompetent to waive the right to counsel. In Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized a defendant's right to pro se representation. However, under Godinez v. Moran , 509 U.S. 389 (1993), a court can require a defendant to be represented by counsel if it believes the accused is less than fully competent to adequately proceed without counsel. In Martinez v. California Court of Appeals , 528 U.S. 152 (2000),
441-403: A defendant, he has a right to legal assistance when the government interrogates him and that when a defendant is arrested, "arraigned on [an arrest] warrant before a judge", and "committed by the court to confinement", "[t]here can be no doubt that judicial proceedings ha[ve] been initiated." A criminal defendant may represent himself, unless a court deems the defendant to be incompetent to waive
504-540: A jury of six would be sufficient, but anything less would deprive the defendant of a right to trial by jury. In Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in all federal and state criminal jury trials. The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. At voir dire , each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if
567-429: A speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. Under the impartial jury requirement, jurors must be unbiased, and the jury must consist of a representative cross-section of the community. The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months. In Barker v. Wingo ,
630-435: Is automatic reversal. Whether counsel is retained or appointed, the defendant has a right to counsel without a conflict of interest . If an actual conflict of interest is present, and that conflict results in any adverse effect on the representation, the result is automatic reversal. The general rule is that conflicts can be knowingly and intelligently waived, but some conflicts are un-waiveable. In Powell v. Alabama ,
693-406: Is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished." Vague wording, even if taken directly from a statute, does not suffice. However, the government is not required to hand over written copies of
SECTION 10
#1732845263869756-527: Is threatened. The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that, regardless of whether the proceeding is labeled as civil, criminal, or administrative, if a defendant faces a loss of liberty, she or he is entitled to appointed counsel if indigent. Anne Pasqua, et al. v. Hon. Gerald J. Council, et al. , 186 N.J. 127 (2006) (March 2006). Until 1963, the right to counsel only applied to criminal defendants accused of federal crimes. However, in Gideon v. Wainwright ,
819-670: The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The assistance of counsel clause includes five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel , and the right to represent oneself pro se . As stated in Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 (1977),
882-659: The United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights . The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants nine different rights, including the right to
945-486: The 19th century, it was only in the 1963 decision Gideon v. Wainwright that the Supreme Court affirmed the right for defendants to have counsel in felony trials. The constitutional right to counsel necessarily encompasses a right to effective counsel. Mere formal appointment of counsel does not satisfy Sixth Amendment's constitutional guarantees; instead, a criminal defendant is entitled to reasonably competent representation. In Strickland v. Washington (1984),
1008-429: The Court decided a jury is required if a federal supervised release revocation would carry a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution requires defendants be tried by juries and in the state in which the crime was committed. The Sixth Amendment requires the jury to be selected from judicial districts ascertained by statute. In Beavers v. Henkel , 194 U.S. 73 (1904),
1071-478: The Court declined to extend this requirement to the state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment unless the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel. In 1961, the Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held in Hamilton v. Alabama that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there
1134-540: The Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held in Hamilton v. Alabama , 368 U.S. 52 (1961), that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there was no "ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like". Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963), ruled that counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases, overruling Betts v. Brady , 316 U.S. 455 (1942), in which
1197-563: The Court has not incorporated the vicinage right. A criminal defendant has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Therefore, an indictment must allege all the ingredients of the crime to such a degree of precision that it would allow the accused to assert double jeopardy if the same charges are brought up in subsequent prosecution. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll , 105 U.S. 611 (1881), that "in an indictment ... it
1260-554: The Court held that a suspended sentence that may result in incarceration cannot be imposed if the defendant did not have counsel at trial. As stated in Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "[means] at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversary proceedings have begun against
1323-406: The Court held that, on collateral review, a defendant may obtain relief if the defendant demonstrates both (1) that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness (the "performance prong") and (2) that, but for the deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different (the "prejudice prong"). To satisfy
SECTION 20
#17328452638691386-648: The Court ruled that state courts had to appoint counsel only when the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel. Under Argersinger v. Hamlin , 407 U.S. 25 (1972), counsel must be appointed in any case resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment. Regarding sentences not immediately leading to imprisonment, the Court in Scott v. Illinois , 440 U.S. 367 (1979), ruled that counsel did not need to be appointed, but in Alabama v. Shelton , 535 U.S. 654 (2002),
1449-596: The Court ruled that the "primary purpose" of a shooting victim's statement as to who shot him, and the police's reason for questioning him, each had to be objectively determined. If the "primary purpose" was for dealing with an "ongoing emergency", then any such statement was not testimonial and so the Confrontation Clause would not require the person making that statement to testify in order for that statement to be admitted into evidence. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses also applies to physical evidence;
1512-487: The Supreme Court articulated a balancing test to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated. It has additionally held that the requirement of a public trial is not absolute and that both the government and the defendant can in some cases request a closed trial. The Sixth Amendment requires that criminal defendants be given notice of the nature and cause of accusations against them. The amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants
1575-413: The Supreme Court increased the scope of the Confrontation Clause by ruling that "testimonial" out-of-court statements are inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial. In Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Court ruled that "testimonial" refers to any statement that an objectively reasonable person in
1638-531: The Supreme Court invalidated a state law that exempted women who had not made a declaration of willingness to serve from jury service, while not doing the same for men. In Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but also regarding any fact used to increase
1701-544: The Supreme Court ruled that "in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him." In Johnson v. Zerbst , the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. However, in Betts v. Brady ,
1764-466: The Supreme Court ruled that the place where the offense is charged to have occurred determines a trial's location. Where multiple districts are alleged to have been locations of the crime, any of them may be chosen for the trial. In cases of offenses not committed in any state (for example, offenses committed at sea), the place of trial may be determined by the Congress. Unlike other Sixth Amendment guarantees,
1827-504: The Supreme Court ruled that while a defendant's out of court statements were admissible in proving the defendant's guilt, they were inadmissible hearsay against another defendant. Hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long-recognized exceptions. For example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable. However, in Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004),
1890-428: The Supreme Court ruled the right to pro se representation did not apply to appellate courts. In Indiana v. Edwards , 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the Court ruled that a criminal defendant could be simultaneously competent to stand trial and yet not competent to represent himself. The Court ultimately concluded that, in light of these rules, a state may require an otherwise competent criminal defendant to proceed to trial with
1953-414: The Supreme Court ruled the right to pro se representation did not apply to appellate courts. In Indiana v. Edwards , 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the Court ruled that a criminal defendant could be simultaneously competent to stand trial, but not competent to represent himself. In Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of "meaningful access to
Sixth Amendment - Misplaced Pages Continue
2016-409: The accused's defense, even if the trial judge rules that defense to be misleading. In the late 20th and early 21st century this clause became an issue in the use of the silent witness rule . The Compulsory Process Clause gives any criminal defendant the right to call witnesses in his favor. If any such witness refuses to testify, that witness may be compelled to do so by the court at the request of
2079-488: The assistance of counsel. The standard for competency to stand trial presumes that the defendant will have a lawyer to assist him at that trial. Implicit therefore in the Dusky rule is the idea that the standard for competency to stand trial must be lower than the standard for competency to represent oneself. The right to represent oneself at trial is qualified by the trial court's interest in preserving courtroom decorum and promoting
2142-447: The assistance of counsel." In Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of "meaningful access to the courts" can be satisfied by counsel or access to legal materials. Bounds has been interpreted by several United States courts of appeals to mean a pro se defendant does not have a constitutional right to access a prison law library to research his defense when access to
2205-516: The community; the defendant might establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group, and that the under-representation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process. Thus, in Taylor v. Louisiana , 419 U.S. 522 (1975),
2268-527: The courts has been provided through appointed counsel. In Louisiana , the state Supreme Court has discussed at what point the right to counsel attached under the state and federal constitutions in State v. Hattaway , 621 So. 2d 796 (La. 1993). In this case, the Court repeated the Brewer condition that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after the commencement of adverse judicial criminal proceedings, and that
2331-415: The courts" can be satisfied by counsel or access to legal materials. Bounds has been interpreted by several United States courts of appeals to mean a pro se defendant does not have a constitutional right to access a prison law library to research his defense when access to the courts has been provided through appointed counsel. Assistance of Counsel Clause The Assistance of Counsel Clause of
2394-410: The declarant's situation would believe likely to be used in court. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305 (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico , 564 U.S. 647 (2011), the Court ruled that admitting a lab chemist's analysis into evidence, without having him testify, violated the Confrontation Clause. In Michigan v. Bryant , 562 U.S. 344 (2011),
2457-563: The defendant faces the possibility of imprisonment. The Supreme Court has incorporated (protected at the state level) all Sixth Amendment protections except one: having a jury trial in the same state and district that the crime was committed. 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
2520-460: The defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for no more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement. Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist. Also, in the United States, except for serious offenses (such as murder ), minors are usually tried in
2583-518: The defendant was not sentenced to any imprisonment. In the United States , while the right to counsel in trials by the federal government was recognized by the US Bill of Rights , the affirmation that this right extended to cases tried by state courts (i.e. most criminal trials, including for crimes such as murder in most cases) came much later. While some state supreme courts affirmed this right during
Sixth Amendment - Misplaced Pages Continue
2646-423: The defendant's right to due process, limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings. According to Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court , 478 U.S. 1 (1986), trials can be closed at the behest of the government if there is "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest". The accused may also request
2709-399: The defendant's rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place. In Sheppard v. Maxwell , 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. In cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine
2772-427: The defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. In Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), the Court expanded on Apprendi and Blakely by ruling that a defendant's right to a jury applies to any fact that would increase a defendant's sentence beyond the minimum otherwise required by statute. In United States v. Haymond , 588 U.S. ___ (2019),
2835-406: The defendant's speedy trial right has been violated. The four factors are: In Strunk v. United States , 412 U.S. 434 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and any conviction overturned. The Court held that, since the delayed trial is the state action which violates
2898-431: The defendant. However, in some cases the court may refuse to permit a defense witness to testify. For example, if a defense lawyer fails to notify the prosecution of the identity of a witness to gain a tactical advantage, that witness may be precluded from testifying. A criminal defendant has the right to be assisted by counsel. In Powell v. Alabama , 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the Supreme Court ruled that "in
2961-455: The government interrogates him and that when a defendant is arrested, "arraigned on [an arrest] warrant before a judge," and "committed by the court to confinement," "[t]here can be no doubt that judicial proceedings ha[ve] been initiated." Individuals subject to grand jury proceedings do not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel because grand juries are not considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be criminal proceedings which trigger
3024-402: The indictment free of charge. The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay , that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person to prove that the statement or observation was true. The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making
3087-540: The link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sixth_Amendment&oldid=1151168223 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Sixth Amendment ( Amendment VI ) to
3150-419: 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. Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial. In Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether
3213-441: The orderly presentation of evidence, questioning of witnesses, and advancement of legal argument. For the Court, it was "common sense" that a defendant's mental illness might impair his ability to accomplish these tasks—tasks that any lawyer must if he is to press his client's case effectively. "A right of self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without
SECTION 50
#17328452638693276-536: The prejudice prong of Strickland , a defendant who pleads guilty must show that, but for counsel's deficient performance, he or she would not have pleaded guilty. In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Court held that counsel's failure to inform an alien pleading guilty of the risk of deportation fell below the objective standard of the performance prong of Strickland and permitted an alien who would not have pleaded guilty but for such failure to withdraw his guilty plea. A criminal defendant may represent himself, unless
3339-401: The prosecution must present physical evidence to the jury, providing the defense ample opportunity to cross-examine its validity and meaning. Prosecution generally may not refer to evidence without first presenting it. In Hemphill v. New York , No. 20-637 , 595 U.S. ___ (2022), the Court ruled the accused had to be given an opportunity to cross-examine a witness called to rebut
3402-415: The protections of that constitutional protection. Subject to considerations such as conflicts of interest , scheduling, counsel's authorization to practice law in the jurisdiction, and counsel's willingness to represent the defendant (whether pro bono or for a fee), criminal defendants have a right to be represented by counsel of their choice. The remedy for erroneous deprivation of first choice counsel
3465-417: The right exists only during pre-trial confrontations that can be considered "critical stages" during adverse judicial criminal proceedings. 621 So.2d at 801. No clear definition of a critical stage was given, but interrogation of a defendant by police officers was offered as an example of a critical stage in that case. Some states extend the right to counsel to all matters where a defendant's liberty interest
3528-561: The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, while the Compulsory Process Clause gives criminal defendants the right to call their own witnesses and, in some cases, compel witnesses to testify. The Assistance of Counsel Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be assisted by counsel. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that a public defender must be provided to criminal defendants unable to afford an attorney in all trials where
3591-406: The right to counsel "means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, 'whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. ' " Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversarial proceedings have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal representation when
3654-462: The right to counsel. In Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized a defendant's right to pro se representation. However, under Godinez v. Moran , 509 U.S. 389 (1993), a court that believes the defendant is less than fully competent to represent himself can require that defendant to be assisted by counsel. In Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California , 528 U.S. 152 (2000),
3717-415: The same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges . In Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires a court in a criminal trial to investigate whether a jury's guilty verdict
3780-561: The statements. Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations. Nevertheless, in California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149 (1970), the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause. Hearsay is admissible under certain circumstances. For example, in Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123 (1968),
3843-399: Was based on racial bias. For a guilty verdict to be set aside based on the racial bias of a juror, the defendant must prove that the racial bias "was a significant motivating factor in the juror's vote to convict". Another factor in determining the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected. Venires must represent a fair cross-section of
SECTION 60
#17328452638693906-517: Was held that federal criminal juries had to be composed of twelve persons and that verdicts had to be unanimous, as was customary in England. When, under the Fourteenth Amendment , the Supreme Court extended the right to a trial by jury to defendants in state courts, it re-examined some of the standards. It has been held that twelve came to be the number of jurors by "historical accident", and that
3969-428: Was no "ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like." Gideon v. Wainwright explicitly overruled Betts v. Brady and found that counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases. Under Argersinger v. Hamlin , counsel must be appointed in any case resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment. However, in Scott v. Illinois , the Court ruled that counsel did not need to be appointed if
#868131