Photographic Array: The Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.

The sixth amendment states, “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 or his defence.” ("The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.") This amendment means that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to a quick and public trial. The trial of the accused must be held by an unbiased jury in the area where the crime supposedly

In 1964, after Miranda 's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person? (Supreme Court)

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

The Sixth Amendment provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a(n) speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

The main subject in the Kyllo case deals with the advance in modern technology and how it relates to constitutional law. The overall question in this case is whether or not the use of thermal imaging technology should be used as a tool for searching the home of a person. The argument by the appellant, Mr. Kyllo, uses the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment as a defense against the use of thermal imaging systems without a warrant to search for illegal drug production inside his home. Kyllo v. U.S. is currently pending before the United States Supreme

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

The sixth amendment allows defendants the right to a speedy, public fair trial; such as having access to an attorney to represent you, a jury and the right to be offered a plea. Per the text “Boykin form” is required to ensure that defendants have been informed of all the rights they are waiving. The boykin form prevents defendants the ability to say they wasn’t aware of the crimes they were being charged. Per the text Allocute process means the defendant in open court, must admit to the conduct central to the criminality of crime charged.

The three amendments that are used to protect the rights of those accused of a crime include, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Peak, 2015, p.181). The Fifth Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and life, liberty, and property. Meaning no person will be forced to be a witness against themselves, they cannot be tried for the same offense twice, and their right to life, liberty, and property are protected under the law. (Peak, 2015, p.193). The Sixth Amendment is the right to counsel. Any person who is accused of a crime has the right to counsel for their defense, a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature of their crime which also includes Miranda rights, and to be confronted with the witness against him/her while also having witnesses of their own. (Peak, 2015, p.195). These three Amendments in summary mean to me, that any person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty and their rights are just as important as anyone else. They have the natural born right to have their rights as citizens protected under the law, and ensure fair treatment from law enforcement officers.

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

Fact In 1998, while in the act of robbing a local Popeye Chicken restaurant in Florida, Timothy Lee Hurst killed his co-worker. Hurst was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentence to death by a jury in 2002. However, Hurst attorneys appealed his conviction. Hurst was granted a new sentencing trial, because the Florida Supreme Court found that Hurst was borderline mentally retarted. Hurst legal team did not present evidence of this during his original trial. In the new trial Hurst was sentence to death again, by a jury vote of 7 to 5.  Legal team for Hurst filled a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Sometime after this, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Ring v. Arizona which called into question Arizona’s

Subsequently, in 1972 Argersinger v. Hamlin held that defendants were required legal counsel when faced with incarceration from a misdemeanor or felony conviction (Smith, 2004). Following these Supreme Court decisions, most state and local governments had to develop new systems of indigent defense or modify the old ones to keep up with the number of clients (Wice, 2005). Since Gideon v. Wainwright, other cases have challenged the Supreme Court application of the right to counsel. Currently, all defendants are given the right to counsel at all stages of the criminal justice process, including during trial, appeals, and even during police interrogation.

In the case Miranda v Arizona in 1966, the United States Supreme Court determined, suspects of criminal activities have the right to be free from self-incrimination during an interrogation by law enforcement (Hall, 2015). These findings provided guidelines to law enforcement personnel when questioning individuals suspected of criminal actions since referred to as Miranda warnings. The Miranda warnings are rights given to a suspect before questioning begins advising them of their right to remain silent, their right to speak with an attorney, moreover, acknowledgment of their statements possibly being used against them in court. Additionally, the Miranda rights inform individuals an opportunity to have an attorney present even if they cannot afford one on their own. The State will provide an attorney at no cost to indigent individuals.

Three other cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court along with Miranda V. Arizona and combined to make up the legal reasoning behind what we now know as the Miranda warning. In Vignera V. New York, the accused was questioned by police, verbally confessed to a crime, and signed a written confession, all without being advised of his right to counsel (Miranda V. Arizona). In Westover V. United States, Westover was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, was not informed he had the right to an attorney, and was interrogated and made to sign several statements (Miranda V. Arizona). Similarly, in California V. Stewart, law enforcement detained and interrogated Stewart for five days without advising him of his Fifth Amendment rights (Miranda V. Arizona). Together, all four cases set the precedence for constitutional arrest procedure and under what circumstances

The primary source of the right to counsel is the Sixth Amendment. It states in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for defence. In this article, the development of the right to council will be discussed as well as when the right to council attaches to criminal procedures. The right to self- representation and the role of attorneys as it applies to right to council will be discussed as well.