6. Amendment to the United States Constitution
The 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America , the Sixth Amendment , part of the Bill of Rights and guarantees in the prosecution by US federal courts certain rights. He makes sure that the accused
- the right to an immediate public trial by jury ( jury have)
- find out the reasons for the charge ,
- to be confronted with the witnesses whose statements incriminate them,
- may cause witnesses to be summoned in their defense,
- Obtained legal counsel in their defense.
The Supreme Court , the Supreme Court of the United States decided later that these rights are so fundamental and important that they by the Due - Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which also for prosecution by courts US states apply.
text
“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. "
“In all criminal proceedings the accused has the right to an immediate and public trial before an impartial jury of the state and district in which the crime was committed, whereby the responsible district must be determined in advance by law. He is also entitled to be informed of the nature and reasons of the indictment and to be confronted with the witnesses, as well as to have witnesses summoned and a lawyer to defend him. "
The 6th Amendment to the Constitution is listed as the eighth article ("Article the eighth") in the bill passed by the US Congress .
history
The original text of the US Constitution aroused some opposition for failing to adequately guarantee civil rights. In response, the Sixth Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was proposed by the US Congress in 1789 . On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights had been ratified by the necessary number of states and thus passed.
Immediate process
According to the Sixth Amendment, the defendants in criminal matters have the right to an immediate trial . In the case of Barker v. In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled that Wingo had to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not the defendants were denied this right. One of the factors recognized by the Supreme Court in making this decision is how long the defendant must wait to be tried, but it has never been specifically ruled that beyond a certain length of time the right to an immediate trial will not be granted. Another recognized factor is the reason for the delay in the process. The prosecution must not unduly delay a process for their own benefit, but the process may be shifted to the presence of a long absent witnesses ensured. The other factors that need to be considered are the time and manner in which the defendant made their claims and the degree of harm the delay caused to the defendant. If a defendant's right to immediate trial is found to have been violated, the indictment must be abandoned and / or the sentence overturned. Once this is done because of the non-granted right to an immediate trial, the defendant cannot be prosecuted for the offense that was the subject of the previous trial.
Public process
Processes don't necessarily have to be public ; they may be regulated appropriately in order to avoid influencing the jury by the public. Trials may only be held in camera at the behest of the government if the government does
-
[shows] an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
("[Indicates] an overriding interest based on judgments that the exclusion of the public is necessary to uphold higher values, and that it is closely tailored to serve that interest.")
The accused may also ask that the trial be held in camera; in such a case it has to be proven 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 fair trial rights.
(“First, there is a considerable likelihood that the defendant's right to a fair trial by the public will be impaired and that such interference could be prevented by inoculation, and, secondly, that reasonable alternatives to excluding the public will protect the rights of the public Defendants cannot adequately guarantee a fair trial. ")
jury
The right to a trial before a jury has always been dependent on the type of offense of which the accused is accused. Trials of petty offenses (roughly equivalent to the violation that has been abolished in Germany ) - crimes punishable by no more than six months' imprisonment - do not have to take place in front of a jury ; not even if there are multiple petty offenses and the defendant may be sentenced to more than six months' imprisonment. Trials in US state juvenile courts also do not have to take place in front of a jury .
Originally the Supreme Court stated:
-
The phrase "trial by jury" [...] means 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.
("By the term" trial before a jury "[...] is meant a trial before a jury as it is understood and applied by common law . The term includes all essential elements of the jury , as it is in England and this country were understood when the Constitution was passed. ")
It was therefore decided that juries should consist of twelve people and that their judgments should be passed unanimously, as was customary in England. When the Supreme Court granted the right to a jury trial under the 14th Amendment to those charged in a state court, it re-examined some of those rules. At that time it was determined that due to a " historical accident " (for example: "historical coincidence / accident") it had been determined that a jury had to consist of twelve people and that six people would actually be sufficient. The court also came to the conclusion that the judgments did not have to be passed unanimously.
According to the sixth amendment, the juries must be “ impartial ”. First the clause was interpreted to mean that the individual jurors had to be impartial. In the voir dire today, any party can ask the potential juror to resolve a particular bias and reject it if that bias is found; the court decides on the validity of this challenge for cause (for example: "Rejection for a specific reason"). However, the accused may not contest the judgment on the grounds that the jury's challenge for cause was wrongly dismissed if he had the opportunity to face peremptory challenges (such as: "irrefutable rejection"; that is, the rejection of a jury without having to give a reason for this).
Another factor necessary to determine the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the venires (group from which the jury is selected). The venires must represent an appropriate cross-section of society ; the accused can establish that this requirement has been violated by showing that an allegedly excluded social group is “ distinctive ”, that the underrepresentation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unjust in relation to the number of people who belong to such a group and that the under-representation is caused by systematic exclusion in the selection process. In the 1975 Taylor v. Louisiana introduced a state law that excluded women who had not declared their willingness to serve on the jury , but did not do so in the case of men.
The Constitution originally required that the defendants be tried by juries from the state where the crime was committed. The sixth amendment to the constitution expanded this guideline by stipulating that the trials must take place in the districts to be determined by law. In 1904 the Supreme Court found in the Beavers v. Henkel states that the place where the criminal offense was committed according to the indictment determines the place where the trial takes place. If the offense is found to have occurred in multiple counties, any of them may be selected for trial. If the crime was not committed in a US state, but at sea, for example, the US Congress will determine the location of the trial.
Grounds for charge
The sixth amendment gives a defendant the right to be informed of the nature of the charge and its reasons. An indictment must list all elements of the offense of which the accused is accused. In 1881 the Supreme Court found United States v. Carll firmly:
-
[I] n an indictment ... it 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.
(“[I] In an indictment [...] it is not sufficient to set out the offense in the words of the relevant law, unless those words fully, directly and expressly set out, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, all the elements that are necessary to commit the offense that is to be punished. ")
Witnesses
According to the sixth amendment, the defense must have an opportunity to be “ confronted ” with the witnesses and to cross-examine them. The confrontation clause is related to the common law rule that prevents hearsay from being admitted to court, that is, the testimony of a witness in which he repeats the testimony and observations of a non-witness person. The rationale for this rule was that the defendant did not have an opportunity to challenge the credibility of the person who actually gave the testimony and to cross-examine that person. However, certain exceptions to the hearsay rule were permitted ; For example, admissions by the accused (such as: "concessions"; statements that are hearsay but incriminate the accused) are just as permissible as dying declarations (statements on the deathbed; statements made by a dying person and which are therefore actually hearsay are). However, the Supreme Court found that the hearsay rule does not say exactly the same as the clause on the comparison of the sixth constitutional amendment; hearsay can be allowed under some circumstances, even if it is not subject to one of the long-recognized exceptions; for example, earlier testimony can sometimes be admitted if the witness is not currently available.
The defendant must also be allowed to name witnesses who testify in his favor. If such witnesses refuse to appear in court, the court may compel them to do so at the request of the accused. In some cases, however, the court may refuse to allow a witness to testify in defense. For example, if a criminal defense attorney fails to provide the prosecution with the identity of his witnesses in order to gain a tactical advantage, there is an option not to testify to those witnesses whose identities have not been disclosed.
Legal counsel
Finally, the sixth amendment guarantees the right of the accused to obtain legal advice. The accused has the right to be heard by lawyers chosen by him. If necessary, the accused can also represent himself if the court is of the opinion that he has the skills.
Originally, the clause was not interpreted as requiring the state to provide legal assistance to the defendant if the defendant could not afford one. The Supreme Court began in 1932 in the Powell v. Alabama to broaden the interpretation of the clause by stating:
-
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 cases in which the death penalty can be imposed and the accused cannot obtain legal assistance and cannot adequately represent himself due to his ignorance, insanity, illiteracy or similar reasons, it is the duty of the court to make the accused independent of whether he has asked to assign a defense attorney. ")
In 1938 the Supreme Court ruled in the Johnson v. Zerbst that defendants who are too poor to be able to afford a lawyer must be assigned a defense attorney in all cases in federal courts. In 1942, when he took the Betts v. Brady ruled, but the Court declined to require the 14th Amendment to also apply to trials in state courts.
It was not until 1960 that the Supreme Court extended the scope of the above rule for federal courts to the courts of the states. In 1961 in the Hamilton v. Alabama states that in cases where the death penalty could be imposed, the defendants would have to obtain free legal assistance if they so requested, even if there was no “ ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like ” (“ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy or similar ") on the part of the defendant. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright was the 1963 verdict from Betts v. Brady expressly repealed, stating that penniless defendants must be given legal counsel in all trials, whether or not they could face the death penalty.
