Amendments: Our Constitution's Evolution In Six Steps

The Six Amendments to the US Constitution cover a range of topics, including the rights of those accused in criminal prosecutions, the powers of the states, and the election of the President. To date, there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution, with the first 10 being ratified simultaneously and known as the Bill of Rights. The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V, which requires ratification by three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions. The Sixth Amendment specifically guarantees several rights in criminal prosecutions, including the right to a speedy and public trial and the right to an impartial jury.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

A Short and Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short and Happy Series)

$21

US Constitution 101: From the Bill of Rights to the Judicial Branch, Everything You Need to Know about the Constitution of the United States (Adams 101 Series)

$14.5 $16.99

The Civilian Rights Handguide: A Citizen's Guide to Navigating Police Encounters

$14.91

The Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution: A Fully Annotated Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Amendments, and Selections from The Federalist Papers

$12.89 $15

Rights in criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants eight different rights.

Firstly, the Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial. This right has been interpreted differently throughout history, but the general expectation is that a criminal trial should begin with little delay and not be conducted for too long. The Supreme Court has laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated, considering the length of delay, the reason for the delay, and the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted their right. The Court has enforced the "public" aspect of this right more strictly, allowing for closed proceedings only in cases of national security, public safety, or a victim's serious privacy interests.

Secondly, the Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury. This jury must be composed of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was allegedly committed and must be a representative cross-section of the community. The right to a jury applies only to offenses where the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in all federal and state criminal jury trials.

Thirdly, criminal defendants have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. An indictment must allege all the ingredients of the crime with precision, allowing the accused to assert double jeopardy if the same charges are brought up in a subsequent prosecution.

Fourthly, the Sixth Amendment grants defendants the right to confront witnesses during the trial and have witnesses appear to testify on their behalf. This right is complemented by the Compulsory Process Clause, which allows defendants to subpoena witnesses to force them to testify.

Lastly, the Amendment guarantees the right to legal representation, also known as the right to counsel. The Supreme Court has held that a public defender must be provided to criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney in cases where the defendant faces the possibility of imprisonment.

Right to a speedy trial

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial, among other rights. This amendment was ratified in 1791 along with the first nine amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system, ensuring that individuals accused of crimes do not face undue delays in the judicial process. This right is intended to protect the accused from prolonged pretrial detention, minimise the disruption to their lives caused by pending criminal charges, and ensure that witnesses and evidence remain available and reliable.

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 further defines and implements this right by imposing time limits for criminal proceedings. According to the Act, any information or indictment must be filed within 30 days of arrest, and the trial must commence within 70 days of indictment. These time limits are subject to certain exemptions, such as continuances that serve the ends of justice and delays resulting from pretrial motions.

The remedy for a violation of an individual's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial may result in the dismissal of charges with prejudice. This means that the charges cannot be filed again, protecting the accused from potential prejudice due to delays in their trial.

Impartial jury

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the accused in criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. This right applies to both the Federal Government and the states. The impartial jury must be selected from a representative cross-section of the community and must be impartial with respect to both contestants.

The requirement of impartiality is twofold. Firstly, the defence and prosecution must be given the opportunity to inquire into possible grounds of bias, prejudice, or pre-formed opinions that potential jurors may have. The judge must then determine whether the nature and strength of any opinion raise a presumption against impartiality. Secondly, the defendant must show that the group alleged to be excluded is distinctive in the community, that their representation in jury selection is not fair and reasonable, and that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion.

The right to an impartial jury is also supported by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and possibly the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court has also directed its supervisory power over the federal system to the issue. Even before the right to a jury trial was extended to state courts, it was established that if a state chose to provide juries, they had to be impartial.

The Swain standard of proof, which required defendants to show that prosecutors had used peremptory challenges to exclude jurors of their own race, was relaxed in Batson v. Kentucky. Now, a defendant may establish an equal protection violation resulting from a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to systematically exclude black jurors, regardless of the defendant's race. However, the Court ruled in Holland v. Illinois that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges does not constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Explore related products

The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

$12.99 $12.99

The Glannon Guide to Constitutional Law: Learning Constitutional Law through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis

$71.95 $71.95

The Constitution of the United States of America, Extended Edition: A Complete Reference Guide with Detailed Explanations of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights

$29.99 $19.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$19.99 $3.89

Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments

$9.2

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition

$49.99 $49.99

Confront witnesses

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution outlines the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions. One of the key rights enshrined in this amendment is the right to "be confronted with the witnesses against" them. This provision, commonly referred to as the Confrontation Clause, guarantees the accused the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses testifying against them in a criminal trial.

The Confrontation Clause serves several important purposes. Firstly, it ensures that the accused has the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the testimony presented by the prosecution's witnesses. This helps to prevent false or misleading evidence from being used to secure a conviction. Secondly, by allowing the defence to cross-examine witnesses, the clause promotes the transparency and fairness of the trial process, reducing the likelihood of miscarriages of justice.

The right to confront witnesses is not absolute and has been the subject of interpretation and debate over the years. For example, the amendment specifically refers to the right to confront "witnesses", which has been interpreted to mean those who provide testimony regarding the facts of the case. This typically excludes individuals who provide laboratory reports, calibration records, or other forms of documentary evidence.

Additionally, the Confrontation Clause has been balanced against other considerations, such as the protection of vulnerable witnesses. In certain cases, courts have allowed the testimony of witnesses to be presented without a face-to-face confrontation to protect the privacy and well-being of child witnesses or those who have been subjected to sexual assault. In such instances, alternative methods of providing testimony, such as closed-circuit television or the use of screens or partitions, may be employed.

Assistance of counsel

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know one's accusers, as well as the nature of the charges and evidence against them. This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments ratified simultaneously in 1791.

The Sixth Amendment ensures that a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney defending them at trial, regardless of their ability to pay. If a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the government must provide one. This right to counsel is more than just having an attorney present at criminal proceedings; the attorney's assistance must be effective. The Supreme Court has ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Once a person indicates that they do not wish to be interrogated, the police must stop questioning them. These mandatory statements by police are known as Miranda rights or the Miranda warning.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel also applies when police casually speak with a defendant and intentionally discuss topics they know are likely to elicit incriminating statements. In such cases, the police must inform the defendant of their right to an attorney before the interrogation begins. The Supreme Court has also ruled that counsel appointed to represent a criminal defendant must "support his client's appeal to the best of his ability." This means that even if counsel believes an appeal has no merit, they must still represent their client's interests.

The Sixth Amendment does not allow a state to force a defendant to accept an attorney if they wish to represent themselves. However, the defendant must demonstrate literacy, competence, and an understanding of the consequences of giving up their right to counsel. In the case of a defendant who cannot afford an attorney, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to have counsel appointed at the government's expense. This right was affirmed in the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment includes the right to counsel appointed at the government's expense for defendants who cannot afford it in federal court trials. However, this ruling was not extended to state court trials in Betts v. Brady.

Frequently asked questions