Court Cases that reflect on the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and the right to a speedy trial. The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right.
Criminal Defendants' Rights . Perhaps the most essential protection is the requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Constitution provides that a defendant cannot . If the defendant chooses to remain silent, the prosecutor cannot call the defendant as a witness, nor can a judge or defense attorney force the defendant to testify.
A civil defendant may, however, be forced to testify as a witness in a civil case. This gives defendants the right to cross- examine witnesses—that is, the right to require the witnesses to come to court, . The Sixth Amendment forbids prosecutors from proving a defendant's guilt with oral or written hearsay statements from non- testifying witnesses, unless a judge concludes that the hearsay is non- testimonial. In general, statements made during ongoing emergencies (such as a call to a 9. On the other hand, statements made to police officers seeking information about a past crime are testimonial. This is an important right, because the presence in courtrooms of a defendant's family and friends, ordinary citizens, and the press can help ensure that the government observes important rights associated with trials.
In a few situations—normally involving children—the court will close the court to the public. For example, judges can bar the public from attending cases when defendants are charged with sexual assaults against children. Also, the judge may exclude witnesses from the courtroom in order to prevent a witness from influencing the subsequent testimony of another.
This right has traditionally been interpreted to mean a 1. However, a jury can constitutionally consist of as few as six persons, but defendants tried by six- person juries can be convicted only if the jury is unanimous in favor of guilt. In most states, a lack of unanimity is called a . In Oregon and Louisiana, however, juries may convict or acquit a defendant on a vote of ten to two. Supreme Court has upheld state law providing for less- than- unanimous verdicts by 1. Potential jurors must be selected randomly from the community, and the actual jury must be selected by a process that allows the judge and lawyers to screen out biased jurors. In addition, a lawyer may eliminate several potential jurors simply because he feels that these people would not be sympathetic to his side—but these decisions (called .
Thus, judges often have to decide on a case- by- case basis whether a defendant's trial has been so delayed that the case should be thrown out. In making this decision, judges look at the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the delay has prejudiced (harmed) the defendant's position. Every jurisdiction has enacted statutes that set time limits for moving cases from the filing of the initial charge to trial. While these statutes are very strict in their wording, most defendants cannot get their convictions reversed on the ground that these statutes were violated. Supreme Court has ruled that both indigent defendants who are represented by appointed counsel and defendants who hire their own attorneys are entitled to adequate representation—that is, to have a lawyer who does a reasonably good job at defending the defendant.
Defendants are entitled to adequate representation not only at trial, but also when it comes to plea bargains. However, adequate representation is by no means perfect representation. Here are examples of claims that defendants have made to get their guilty verdicts thrown out but that appellate courts have rejected.
Judges have reversed guilty verdicts where: The attorney put a law- student intern in charge of the defense and left the courtroom while the case was going on. During closing arguments, the attorney acknowledged that the defendant was guilty of a lesser crime without first securing the defendant's approval of this tactic.
During voir dire (questioning of the jury), the attorney failed to challenge two potential jurors who said they would be bothered by the defendant's failure to testify. For example, a defendant may face charges in both federal and state court for the same conduct if some aspects of that conduct violated federal laws while other elements ran afoul of the laws of the state. Furthermore, the double jeopardy clause forbids more than one criminal prosecution growing out of the same conduct. So, for example, a defendant can be brought once to criminal court (by the government) and once to civil court (by someone who's been harmed) for the same offense. Get Help. For a comprehensive understanding of the law, including how it may differ somewhat in your state, talk to an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Criminal trials are tremendously complex. But even a defendant who doesn't plan on going to trial should rely on a lawyer.
You can use Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory to find one near you.
Constitution - Amendment 6 - The U. Install Squid On Debian 6 Media there. S. Constitution Online.