Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Sixth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights and guaranteed in law enforcement by U.S. federal courts certain rights. He ensures that the accused

• Have the right to an immediate public trial by jury ( jury )
• Know the reasons for the prosecution
• Are the witnesses whose statements they burden faced,
• May cause the subpoena of witnesses in their defense
• Obtain legal counsel for their defense

The Supreme Court of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled later that these rights are so fundamental and important that they are considered by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and for prosecutions in the courts of U.S. states.

Wording

English:

German:

The 6th Amendment is listed as decided by the U.S. Congress legislative Deed as the eighth article ( "Article the eighth ").

History

The original text of the U.S. Constitution provoked some resistance because it does not adequately guaranteed civil rights. In response, in 1789, the sixth Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, proposed by the U.S. Congress. On December 15, 1791, the necessary Bill of Rights on the number of states had ratified and adopted it.

Immediate process

The Sixth Amendment, the defendants in criminal cases the right to a prompt trial. In the case of Barker v. Wingo, the Supreme Court turned back as 1971, that has to be decided from case to case whether the defendant was denied this right or not. One of the recognized by the Supreme Court for this decision factors is how long the defendant has to wait for his trial, but it was never expressly decided that the law is not granted to an immediate process from a certain time period. Another recognized factor is the reason for the delay in the process. The prosecution shall not delay a process excessively for their own benefit, but the process may be moved to ensure the presence of a longer absent witnesses. The other factors that must be considered are the time and the manner in which the accused has made his claims, and the degree of the damage that has caused the delay for the accused. If it is determined that the right of an accused person was injured in an immediate process, the indictment must be abandoned and / or judgment are hereby repealed. After this is done on an immediate process due to the non- granted right, the defendant may prosecute for the offense which was the subject of the previous process, can not be prosecuted.

Public process

Processes need not necessarily be public; they must be properly regulated to avoid influencing the jury by the public. Processes may be held at the behest of the government only closed to the public if the government

The defendant may also ask that the process will be held in camera; in such a case must be proved that

Jury

The right to a trial by jury has always been the nature of the offense of which the defendant was accused dependent. Processes for petty offenses (roughly equivalent to the abolished in Germany transgression ) - offenses punishable by not more than six months imprisonment - must not take place before a jury; also not when it comes to several petty offenses and the defendant may be sentenced to more than six months imprisonment. Processes juvenile courts of the U.S. states do not have to take place before a jury as well.

Originally, the Supreme Court determined:

It was therefore decided that juries should be composed of twelve persons and that their judgments must be unanimous, as was the custom in England. As the Supreme Court the right to a trial by jury because of the 14th Amendment, which also zusprach who were arraigned before a court of any state, he examined some of these rules again. At that time, it was found that due to a " historical accident" (about " historical chance / misfortune Falls" ) had been established that a jury of twelve persons must exist, and that six people would be sufficient. In addition, the Court came to the conclusion that the judgments would not be unanimous.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the juries must be " impartial". First, the clause has been interpreted to mean that the individual jurors would be unbiased. During voir dire must now ask each party to the potential jurors about to adopt a certain bias, and they refuse, if this bias is detected; the court decides on the validity of the challenge for cause (such as " rejection due to a certain reason "). The defendant may not appeal on the grounds that the challenge for cause of a juror was dismissed unfairly, the judgment, however, when he had the opportunity to peremptory challenges (such as " irrefutable rejection ," that is, the rejection of a jury without having to give a reason to use ).

Another factor that is necessary for the decision on the impartiality of the jury, is the nature of venires ( the group from which the jurors are selected). The venires must represent a reasonable cross-section of society; the defendant can establish that this requirement has been violated, by showing that an allegedly excluded group in society "distinctive " ( " marked " ) is that the under-representation of such a group in venires unreasonable and unfair in terms of the number of persons the belong to such a group, and that the under-representation is due to systematic exclusion in the selection process. Thus, the Supreme Court in 1975 raised in the case Taylor v. Louisiana, a law of any state in which women who had their willingness to work in the jury, not declared excluded, but this did not in men.

The Constitution originally required that the defendants were sentenced by juries from the state in which the crime was committed. The sixth Amendment extended this policy by stating wrote that the processes would take place in the law to be determined districts. The Supreme Court set in 1904 in the case Beavers v. Henkel stated that. Due to the place where the offense was committed by the prosecution, the location is determined at which the process takes place If the offense the prosecution has taken place after in several districts, some of them can be selected for the process. If the offense is committed in any U.S. state, but for example at sea, the U.S. Congress sets the location of the process.

Reasons for the prosecution

A defendant has the sixth Amendment, the right to be informed of the nature of the charges as well as their reasons. An indictment must state all elements of the offense of which the defendant is accused. The Supreme Court set in 1881 in the case United States v. Carll fixed:

Testify

The defense needs of the sixth Amendment to the Constitution have an opportunity to be " faced " the witnesses and to cross-examine. The confrontation clause is related to the rule of the common law together to prevent the admission of hearsay in court, that is, the testimony of a witness, in which he repeated the statements and observations of another, not arising as a witness person. The rationale for this rule was that the defendant had no opportunity to the credibility of the person who has actually made the statement to challenge and to take that person to cross-examine. However, it allowed certain exceptions to the hearsay rule; for example, are admissions by the accused ( such as: " concessions "; statements hearsay are, but the defendant himself strain ) as admissible as dying declarations ( statement on his deathbed; statements that were made ​​by a dying person and therefore actually hearsay are ). However, noted the Supreme Court found that the hearsay rule is not exactly the same states as the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution; hearsay may be allowed in some circumstances, even if it is not subject to the long- recognized exceptions; For example, earlier testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is currently not available.

Also, it must be the defendant allowed to call witnesses who testify in his favor. If such witnesses refuse to appear in court, they may be forced at the request of the accused by the court to do so. In some cases the court may refuse, however, to have a witness testify for the defense. For example, if a criminal defense lawyer failed to communicate to the indictment, the identity of witnesses in order to gain a tactical advantage, it is possible not to let the witnesses whose identities were not disclosed testify.

Legal counsel

Finally, the sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees or the right of the accused to obtain legal counsel. The defendant in this case has the right to be consulted by lawyers who were selected by him. If necessary, the accused may also represent themselves, unless the Court is of the opinion that he has the skills to.

Originally, the clause was not designed in that they require that the State must allocate the accused counsel where this could not afford. The Supreme Court began in 1932 in the case of Powell v. Alabama, to expand the interpretation of the clause by stating:

1938, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, that the defendants, who were too poor to afford a lawyer may, in all cases before federal courts, a defender must be allocated. 1942, when he decided the case in Betts v. Brady, however, the Court refused to make it mandatory by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and to cases brought before courts of the states.

Only in 1960 the Supreme Court extended the scope of the regulations for federal courts rule given above on the courts of the states. He put 1961 firmly in the case of Hamilton v. Alabama, that in cases in which the death penalty could be imposed, the accused should receive free legal assistance if they required this even if there are no " ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like " ( " ignorance, feeble-mindedness, illiteracy, or the like " ) on the part of the accused admit. Gideon v. Wainwright case in the judgment of Betts v. Brady in 1963 expressly repealed by, it was found that indigent defendants in all processes, whether in them the death penalty could be imposed or not, must obtain legal counsel.

Swell

• Kilman, Johnny and George Costello ( Eds ). (2000). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analyis and Interpretation.

Bill of Rights: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Other additives: 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

• Amendment to the Constitution of the United States