The Sixth Amendment And The Sixth Amendment

The originally Bill of Rights protected the rights of citizens from infringement by the federal government, but made no mention of the states. The Fourteen Amendment, adopted shortly after the Civil War, protected citizenship and individual rights from infringement by state governments. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the United States Supreme Court began to apply the most important rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights against the states. This process began in the early 1900s and is known as the doctrine of selective incorporation. Duncan versus Louisiana was the landmark case in which the court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial against the states.

In 1787 the United States’ constitution was written, two years later the Bill of Rights was added. The Bill of Rights consists of ten amendments which were designed based on the American ideals to ensure that the federal government is not too powerful, and that it would protect the rights of the people or of the state. One of the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights is the sixth amendment, which gives the people the right to enjoy a speedy trial when accused, and it allows the accused person to know the cause of the accusation and who his accuser is. It clearly represents some of the American ideals such as: democracy, opportunity, and equality.

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 “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments regards the rights individuals have when coming in contact or in custody with police officers. The fourth amendment is the right of search and seizure. A search is when a police officer goes into a space where the individual bevies they have privacy. A seizure is when a police officer says or does something that an individual would suspect that they are not free to leave police officer contact. The fifth amendment is the right to remain silent and the right to council. The right to remain silent and council only pertain when an individual is in arrest custody. And states "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process." The sixth

Military people can go to trial without the grand jury decision, it is a case when military person commits a crime during a war or a national emergency.

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf

Having a diverse bench is critical to having a successful criminal justice system. The United States court system follows a presumption of innocence, meaning those who enter a courtroom are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not always found in the courtroom. Every courtroom actor, whether consciously or unconsciously, has a bias towards the defendant and may even presume guilt before the case begins. This is especially true when there is a white judge acting on cases involving a defendant who is a part of the minority. Judges who represent the minority are not only unbiased towards defendants of their own race, but they also bring new perspectives to the bench (Haire & Moyer, 2015). They present ideas, understandings, and