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?
No comments:
Post a Comment