Supreme Court rules that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury be drawn from a representative cross section of the community where the crime was committed. In this case, the Court rules the requirement was violated because women were excluded from the jury pool. In Faretta v. Supreme Court rules that although the Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel for those who cannot afford one, it does not allow a state to force a defendant to accept an attorney if he wishes to represent himself.
As long as the defendant shows that he is literate, competent, and understands the effects of choosing to give up the right to have an attorney appointed, the Court finds that the Constitution allows self-representation.
After all, the Court notes, the Constitution protects the rights of the defendant, not the attorney. In Brewer v. Williams , the U. Supreme Court rules that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies not only when police formally interrogate suspects but also when they casually speak with the defendant and intentionally discuss topics that they know are likely to provoke the defendant to make incriminating statements.
In this case, the defendant was in custody for allegedly kidnapping a year-old girl, and police knew that the defendant was deeply religious.
In Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc. The tapes, made in the Oval Office, recorded conversations that were used as evidence in the Watergate prosecutions of high-level White House officials.
Only certain parts had been played for the jury and introduced as evidence. The broadcasters wanted all of the tapes to be released so they could report on the parts that had not been made public. The Court says the guarantee to a public trial only goes as far as what the reporters saw and heard at the trial. In Duren v. Missouri , the U. In this case, the Court finds that the Sixth Amendment was violated because even though women made up more than 50 percent of the general population, they represented only 15 percent of the jury pool.
In Scott v. Illinois , the U. Supreme Court clarifies its ruling in Argersinger v. Hamlin that a defendant who is convicted of a crime cannot be sentenced to jail unless he was offered the appointment of an attorney at trial.
The Court says that in this case, in which the indigent defendant was not sentenced to jail even though it was one of several potential punishments, the state was not obligated under the Sixth Amendment to appoint counsel. In Cuyler v. Sullivan , the U. The Court rules that a defendant can argue his right to effective counsel was violated whether he is paying for his attorney or has court-appointed counsel.
The Court also says representing multiple defendants is not always prohibited. A trial court, it says, can decide if the circumstances require further investigation of a possible conflict. Henry , the U. In a case, Faretta v. Supreme Court rules that a defendant has a right to represent himself and the Court cannot force counsel on the defendant. However, in McKaskle v. In Strickland v. It does not cover the tactical decisions that a defense attorney might make during trial such as the order in which witnesses are put on the stand.
If both parts of the test are not satisfied, then the counsel will be considered to have been effective, and the Sixth Amendment not violated. In Evitts v. Lucey , the U. Supreme Court rules that, just as the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant effective assistance of counsel at trial, he also is entitled to effective assistance of counsel when appealing a conviction. In Hill v.
Lockhart , the U. Inadi , the U. In Michigan v. Supreme Court finds that after a criminal defendant exercises his Sixth Amendment right by asking for an attorney to be appointed, police cannot interrogate the defendant even if the defendant states a willingness to be questioned without an attorney present.
In Batson v. Kentucky , the U. Supreme Court decides that peremptory challenges based on race are unconstitutional. In Coy v. Iowa , the U. The defendant was able to hear their testimony and see the girls dimly. The Court leaves open the possibility that such a screen would be allowable when a child witness was likely to experience trauma if forced to testify in open court.
In Maryland v. Craig , the U. Supreme Court expands on its Coy v. In another case, Idaho v. Wright , the Court restricts the testimony of adults who have interviewed child sexual-abuse victims.
In Georgia v. McCollum , the U. Supreme Court rules that it is just as wrong for defense attorneys to strike potential jurors on the basis of their race as it is for prosecutors to do so. In Godinez v. Gideon had no choice but to defend himself at his trial. He was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison. While in prison, Gideon made frequent use of the prison library.
With the knowledge he gained there, along with the help of a fellow inmate with a legal background, he submitted a hand-written petition to the Supreme Court.
In his petition, he challenged the constitutionality of his conviction, as he had not been able to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The Supreme Court agreed with Gideon that he had not been given a fair trial, and overturned his conviction. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Upcoming Events Explore our upcoming webinars, events and programs. View All Events.
Invest In Our Future The most effective way to secure a freer America with more opportunity for all is through engaging, educating, and empowering our youth.
They were later ratified on December 15, The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, The Right to a Speedy Trial: This clause is intended to prevent long-term incarcerations and detentions without the delivery of a trial.
In a more general sense, this clause was instituted to eliminate the chances of delivering a prison sentence without a guilty verdict. Additionally, it aims to limit court costs and make the court system readily available to all cases that apply. The Right to a Public Trial: The right to a public trial ensures the individual that the proceedings are not conducted in a corrupt or unjust way.
This clause ensures the delivery of a sound and fair trial through the observance of the public. A criminal defendant may voluntarily give up waive his or her right to a public proceeding or the judge may limit public access in certain circumstances.
For example, a judge might order a closed hearing to prevent intimidation of a witness or to keep order in the courtroom. A speedy, public trial that is heard by an impartial jury is meaningless if a defendant is left in the dark about exactly the crime with which he or she is charged.
Rather, it requires that prosecutors put their witnesses on the stand, under oath. As the U. Supreme Court explained in its opinion, California v. There are exceptions to the confrontation clause, of course. If a knowledgeable witness is unavailable at the time of trial, for example, a previous statement will be allowed into evidence, so long as the witness made it under conditions that were similar to those at trial for example, if the statement was made under oath.
0コメント