The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury, not in criminal cases--that's the Sixth Amendment--in "common law" cases, aka. civil cases. This is going to be so short, it wasn't going to be worth its own blog...but...
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
"In suits at common law,..."
Suits, as in lawsuits. Common law, aka. civil law. Civil lawsuits where two parties are in conflict over something non-criminal. The neighbor's tree squishing your car during a storm. A divorce. Wrongful death lawsuits have been the most notorious--ie. OJ Simpson may not have lost his liberty and was protected by Double Jeopardy. But, he paid the families dearly after basically admitting his guilt in his book.
"...where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, ..."
Pretty self explanatory. At one point, the argument was made that a human body was only worth the chemical make-up of the body which at the time was less than $20. The counter-argument that won out is that a human being is worth what potential they had if they lived a normal life--which for the average person is a heck of a lot more than $20. To be honest, cadavers go for over a couple hundred dollars when donated to science. So yea...
"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,..."
Self explanatory. When you sue your neighbor for ruining your new Honda because of that eye sore tree that has been falling out of its roots, bam. You can request a jury. Makes more sense to have a jury trial for a class action lawsuit against the cigarette companies...More sympathy, more compensation. I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but civil cases are really what keep some companies in check. An interesting twist on an Amendment that I'm sure law schools dedicate several classes to. For the layman, the basic gist is simple though.
"...and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Once a jury has spoken, the case is just like any criminal case in the fact that only the appeals process can address the issue from then on. We all know the appeals process can be lengthy and time consuming based on television and the little bit that most of us see whenever a death row inmate is about to be executed. (Amazing how much of our limited knowledge comes from television and limited exposure to the criminal legal system.)
That's it. It gets very, very, very complicated very quickly. Like I stated earlier, civil lawsuits have class upon class upon class in law schools. Civil law is far more complicated because civil law is the majority of our laws. Tax laws, public health codes, false advertising, improper manufacturing or design, medical malpractice...and that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. Lawyers are way, way better suited to explain what is or isn't case worthy. This may have started to ensure that if a neighbor stole your cow, you could get your money or your cow back, but wow. How it evolved.
SPOILER ALERT: Believe it or not...the Eight Amendment is one of the shortest, but it's going to be a longer blog. Go figure.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Not just the Right to a Speedy Trial...the Sixth Amendment
We tend to understand that the Sixth Amendment is the Right to a Speedy Trial, because there are so many crime shows on television. Sometimes we remember which Amendment; sometimes we don't. As I stated in the previous blog for the Fifth Amendment, while we often "plead the Fifth", in reality, the Fifth Amendment is mainly in regards to what cannot be done to us. We "plead the Fifth" because we cannot be compelled or forced to give witness against ourselves. The Sixth Amendment is what we are guaranteed when charged with a crime.
"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 prosecutions,..."
It doesn't apply in any civil proceedings, only criminal. Now, why would that be? Doesn't it seem just a little odd that a country would include rights for criminals in the Bill of Rights? Are we a country of criminals? Not historically. Actually Australia was where most of the criminals from the British Empire went. Most of the Americas migration was to get away from religious persecution. This is where our saying "innocent until proven guilty" comes from. But the interesting note is that often the British ruling authorities prior to the Revolution put people in stockades and prison ships where the treatment could result in death without ever having reached a trial. The fear of persecution and unjust treatment was a very real problem for the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that any "criminal" act was treated fairly and justly and not just at the whim of Governor or military officer.
"...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,..."
Self explanatory. This is where our right to a speedy trial comes from. We often hear about proceedings being closed by the judge. In general, this is going to be if the accused asks for it to be closed. The prosecution would have to have a very compelling reason to request the proceedings to be closed. In cases involving crimes against children, the judges have closed the proceedings to protect the victim or victims. This same statement used to work against rape victims, because it was often used to create a public humiliation situation of the victim. This loophole that was used in most cases into the 1990s was eventually addressed by the legislatures of various states with Rape Shield Laws which protect the victim's rights. The public trial portion isn't to further victimize those that have had the crimes perpetrated against them, but to guarantee that the possible criminal is afforded the check of public scrutiny of our legal system.
"...by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,..."
This is to ensure that a jury of our peers will decide our fate. We actually have the right to waive a jury trial and only have the case heard and decided by a judge. I'm not an attorney so I don't know when this would be a good idea. It's your choice and as far as I can tell your attorney should agree, probably should've been the one to suggest it, as it would be in your best interests. Not sure when it would be in your best interests either. I'm guessing it would be best to listen to your lawyer and I'm also guessing it would be one of those instances where the nuances of the law would be the main contention. In the case that some obscure nuance was where innocence versus guilty would be the determining factor, a dozen laypersons like you or I deciding on some legal mumbo jumbo issue, might not be the most prudent situation.
"...which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,..."
Every so often, cases are moved from the district or state where the crime was committed. It's unusual, but the accused does have the right to request a change of venue, because the courts have deemed that the right to "an impartial jury" supersedes the "of the state and district" where the crime was committed. Remember, the higher courts always tend to lean towards the innocent presumption rather than the guilty and ensuring an "impartial" proceeding will take precedent.
"...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;..."
Simple enough. Your right to know what you are charged with.
"...to be confronted with the witnesses against him;..."
Again, simple enough.
"...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,.."
Also, pretty simple. The prosecution has to present witnesses in front of the accused and the accused has the right to present their own witnesses. Believe it or not, there were Old World trials that ended with only the prosecution's case.
"..and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
The right to an attorney. While any one of us can read the Bill of Rights and understand the basic gist and even form our own opinions, the actual procedural expectations have always been fairly specific. For an average person to defend themselves, this would be difficult. While we see jailhouse lawyers on television that have "studied" the law and defend themselves, the truth is that this is a very unique occurrence. In times where most people had not studied passed the 8th grade, if that, even a lawyer who had been self-educated and studied the law for decades would be better suited to defend someone. (Side note, Abraham Lincoln was a self-educated attorney.) In this day and age, where even the laws that are passed anymore require a Juris Doctorate to even understand half the wording, it is wiser to have a person formally trained to defend us rather than attempt to defend ourselves. The Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen how complicated it would become, although I'm not sure that some of them didn't see it coming like a freight train.
I'm not sure that I have even come close to the tip of the iceberg with this one. To be honest, this is one of the biggest Rights that we have. Most of us will never have to use it, although as we criminalize even civil issues, many of us might. It's a scary thought. This right though, when you are in a bind, guarantees that the legal system cannot be stacked against you. Although as we've seen over the years with OJ Simpson and similar morons, money talks and some guilty go free.
Of course, while I'm loath at the idea of a guilty person going free, I ask you to consider this. Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist, conducted several lectures regarding criminal proceedings reform. His impact on the Founding Fathers is found throughout the Constitution, particularly the legal system. In one of those lectures in 1769, he said "it is better that 10 guilty escape than 1 innocent suffer". In 1895, the US Supreme Court stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” We forget this sometimes. There have been innocent men that have died in prison, only for future forensic abilities to prove their innocence. The innocent being condemned was a common place in the Old World. The Founding Fathers did not want that to happen here. Ironically, this concept was also part of the Roman Empire initially. They failed to continue to adhere to that belief. The Old World failed to adhere to that belief. If we are already failing, what does that say about our "great" society?
"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 prosecutions,..."
It doesn't apply in any civil proceedings, only criminal. Now, why would that be? Doesn't it seem just a little odd that a country would include rights for criminals in the Bill of Rights? Are we a country of criminals? Not historically. Actually Australia was where most of the criminals from the British Empire went. Most of the Americas migration was to get away from religious persecution. This is where our saying "innocent until proven guilty" comes from. But the interesting note is that often the British ruling authorities prior to the Revolution put people in stockades and prison ships where the treatment could result in death without ever having reached a trial. The fear of persecution and unjust treatment was a very real problem for the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that any "criminal" act was treated fairly and justly and not just at the whim of Governor or military officer.
"...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,..."
Self explanatory. This is where our right to a speedy trial comes from. We often hear about proceedings being closed by the judge. In general, this is going to be if the accused asks for it to be closed. The prosecution would have to have a very compelling reason to request the proceedings to be closed. In cases involving crimes against children, the judges have closed the proceedings to protect the victim or victims. This same statement used to work against rape victims, because it was often used to create a public humiliation situation of the victim. This loophole that was used in most cases into the 1990s was eventually addressed by the legislatures of various states with Rape Shield Laws which protect the victim's rights. The public trial portion isn't to further victimize those that have had the crimes perpetrated against them, but to guarantee that the possible criminal is afforded the check of public scrutiny of our legal system.
"...by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,..."
This is to ensure that a jury of our peers will decide our fate. We actually have the right to waive a jury trial and only have the case heard and decided by a judge. I'm not an attorney so I don't know when this would be a good idea. It's your choice and as far as I can tell your attorney should agree, probably should've been the one to suggest it, as it would be in your best interests. Not sure when it would be in your best interests either. I'm guessing it would be best to listen to your lawyer and I'm also guessing it would be one of those instances where the nuances of the law would be the main contention. In the case that some obscure nuance was where innocence versus guilty would be the determining factor, a dozen laypersons like you or I deciding on some legal mumbo jumbo issue, might not be the most prudent situation.
"...which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,..."
Every so often, cases are moved from the district or state where the crime was committed. It's unusual, but the accused does have the right to request a change of venue, because the courts have deemed that the right to "an impartial jury" supersedes the "of the state and district" where the crime was committed. Remember, the higher courts always tend to lean towards the innocent presumption rather than the guilty and ensuring an "impartial" proceeding will take precedent.
"...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;..."
Simple enough. Your right to know what you are charged with.
"...to be confronted with the witnesses against him;..."
Again, simple enough.
"...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,.."
Also, pretty simple. The prosecution has to present witnesses in front of the accused and the accused has the right to present their own witnesses. Believe it or not, there were Old World trials that ended with only the prosecution's case.
"..and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
The right to an attorney. While any one of us can read the Bill of Rights and understand the basic gist and even form our own opinions, the actual procedural expectations have always been fairly specific. For an average person to defend themselves, this would be difficult. While we see jailhouse lawyers on television that have "studied" the law and defend themselves, the truth is that this is a very unique occurrence. In times where most people had not studied passed the 8th grade, if that, even a lawyer who had been self-educated and studied the law for decades would be better suited to defend someone. (Side note, Abraham Lincoln was a self-educated attorney.) In this day and age, where even the laws that are passed anymore require a Juris Doctorate to even understand half the wording, it is wiser to have a person formally trained to defend us rather than attempt to defend ourselves. The Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen how complicated it would become, although I'm not sure that some of them didn't see it coming like a freight train.
I'm not sure that I have even come close to the tip of the iceberg with this one. To be honest, this is one of the biggest Rights that we have. Most of us will never have to use it, although as we criminalize even civil issues, many of us might. It's a scary thought. This right though, when you are in a bind, guarantees that the legal system cannot be stacked against you. Although as we've seen over the years with OJ Simpson and similar morons, money talks and some guilty go free.
Of course, while I'm loath at the idea of a guilty person going free, I ask you to consider this. Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist, conducted several lectures regarding criminal proceedings reform. His impact on the Founding Fathers is found throughout the Constitution, particularly the legal system. In one of those lectures in 1769, he said "it is better that 10 guilty escape than 1 innocent suffer". In 1895, the US Supreme Court stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” We forget this sometimes. There have been innocent men that have died in prison, only for future forensic abilities to prove their innocence. The innocent being condemned was a common place in the Old World. The Founding Fathers did not want that to happen here. Ironically, this concept was also part of the Roman Empire initially. They failed to continue to adhere to that belief. The Old World failed to adhere to that belief. If we are already failing, what does that say about our "great" society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)