The Scottsboro Boys

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

This is an important debate for people accused of a crime because these rights could mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment. The two positions argue whether or not suspects should be read their Miranda Rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence indicates that these rights could help guilty suspects avoid punishment. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that they will not. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that suspects should be read their Miranda Rights is the stronger position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that these rights

Right to accusation of serious crime by the grand jury before any criminal charges for illegal crimes.

There were several trials held throughout the case of the Scottsboro Boys. Most of them were unfair and obviously conducted with the odds stacked against the boys. The testimonies given by the two girls often did not match up. Victoria Price spent the most time on the stand, and on the rare occasion that Ruby Bates testified, most of what she said was disregarded because it contradicted or changed Price’s story. It was concluded that anything Bates said was no good because she was dimwitted and could not keep her story straight.

Charles Weems, Andy Wright, Haywood Patterson, Clarence Norris, Willie Roberson, Eugene Williams, Roy Wright, Ozie Powell, and Olen Montgomery, aged 13 to 19 years old, boarded a train from Chattanooga, Alabama to Memphis, Tennessee in hopes of finding work. While on the train ride, they were harassed by whites, and eventually pushed the men off. When the train made a stop in Paint Rock, Alabama on March 25, 1931, two white women, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, convicted the nine boys of rape. They made claims that the boys held them down and raped them.

The novel Picking Cotton: our memoir of injustice and redemption, is based on a true event that occurred between the mid-1980’s to the mid-1990’s. During this event, Jennifer Thompson was raped and she mistakenly identified Ronald Cotton as her rapist. Due to mistakes from both sides, Ronald Cotton forcibly served time for a crime he did not commit. The actual rapist, Bobby Poole, eventually confessed that he was the true culprit and Cotton was released. Cotton could have continued his life without Thompson, but due to the fact that they lived in the same town and attended interviews on the same show, they happen to meet each other on various occasions.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every defendant a right to counsel and to a fair trial. That right is often rationed. Those with financial resources receive the best justice money can buy, while the poor are left with a little justice system valuing expediency over quality, resulting in the majority of cases ending in plea bargains (Love, 2017).

The jury system that is in place by the United States Constitution is pivotal to hearing the rights and grievances of citizens in public and with a jury of their peers. Why, even Amendment six of the Bill of Right is written as thus; “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… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. The point being that there are safeguards in place to protect the rights of every American citizen. These safeguards are the Bill of Right, which along with the Constitution of the United States is the bedrock for the republic. To be specific on the matter at hand, the third article of the Constitution must be examined for an understanding of how and why it functions in the

Access to justice: What do those three words mean to you? Access to justice is a very special thing to a lot of people, especially for alleged criminals, who instead of being punished and/or executed without a trial, hopefully will have a chance in court, when they can plead their case before a judge and jury. The preamble to the United States Constitution says this: These words show that access to justice has been in place since the US was established by our founding fathers. What does access to justice mean? Access to justice means that nothing, including your gender, race, ethnicity, language will cause you to have an unfair trial or no trial at all. You are guaranteed a fair trial and a lawyer if you cannot afford one of your own.

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

In the year 1931, all nine of the Scottsboro boys Haywood Patterson, Charles Weems, Clarence Norris, Andy Wright, Ozzie Powell, Olen Montgomery, Eugene Williams, Willie Roberson, and Roy Wright are arrested and tried on charges of assault from fighting white boys on a train. Along with accusations made by Victoria Price and Ruby Bates that the boys raped them. Their trial begins April 6, 1931. All of the boys except for Roy Wright are tired and convicted, with the result of the death sentence, Roy Wright’s trial ends in a mistrial. Later the NAACP and International Labor Defense, fight to represent the boys. Even though there was no proof that the boys committed these crimes they

The right to a properly speedy trial impacts the accused, the prosecution, and society. Being in jail or out in society on bail can have a serious effect of somebody’s character and effect the person’s rehabilitation

By taking into account the defendant’s constitutional rights throughout every part of a criminal investigation, this allows police officers to adhere to due process protections and carry out the goals of the crime control

The following case study presents issues related to the legal rights afforded the accused and the reasons those rights are provided to all individuals under our system of criminal justice.