The Right To Counsel: A Constitutional Guarantee

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. One of the most important tenets of the Sixth Amendment is the right to counsel, which gives criminal defendants the right to be assisted by counsel in their defence. This amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights and guarantees criminal defendants eight different rights, including the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.

Explore related products

Right to Counsel: Historic Supreme Court Decisions (LandMark Case Law)

$0.99

In-House Counsel's Essential Toolkit

$160.91 $225.95

The right to counsel in American courts. 1955 [Leather Bound]

$35.95

Counsel with Confidence: A Quick Reference Guide for Biblical Counselors and Disciplers (Counsel for the Heart)

$16.99 $16.99

The Gideon Case: Inside the Supreme Court's Historic Right to Counsel Decision

$45

Right to Counsel

$5.99 $11.95

The right to a speedy trial

The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment also ensures the right to a speedy trial, which is closely linked to the right to counsel.

The Sixth Amendment states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". This right is considered fundamental to the US justice system, and it applies to both federal and state trials. The right to a speedy trial is intended to protect the accused from undue delay in criminal prosecution. This protection is provided through a series of measures, including the Due Process Clause, which safeguards against extreme government delay in bringing charges.

The concept of a "speedy trial" is somewhat vague, and the specific time limits for charging and trial have been the subject of litigation. The Speedy Trial Act, for example, directs that no more than 30 days pass between arrest and indictment and that no more than 70 days pass between indictment and trial.

The right to an impartial jury

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants criminal defendants eight distinct rights, one of which is the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. This right ensures that defendants are tried by a jury composed of impartial members from the local community in the state and district where the crime was allegedly committed.

The impartiality requirement of the Sixth Amendment mandates that jurors be unbiased and that the jury represents a diverse cross-section of the community. During the jury selection process, or voir dire, both sides can question prospective jurors to uncover any potential biases and challenge them if necessary. The validity of these challenges is determined by the court. However, defendants cannot challenge a conviction based on the incorrect denial of a challenge for cause if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the impartial jury requirement in several cases. In Barker v. Wingo, the Court established a balancing test to determine if a defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated. Additionally, the Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute, and both the government and the defendant can request a closed trial in certain circumstances.

In Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), the Supreme Court further clarified that trial courts must investigate whether a jury's guilty verdict was influenced by racial bias. For the verdict to be overturned, the defendant must demonstrate that racial bias significantly motivated the juror's decision to convict. The nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected, is also a factor in assessing the jury's impartiality.

The Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial does not apply to petty offenses punishable by imprisonment of six months or less, nor to minors, who are typically tried in juvenile court, except in the most serious cases. The Supreme Court initially interpreted the amendment to include all the essential elements of a jury trial as recognized at common law, including a jury of twelve people and unanimous verdicts. However, in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the Court mandated unanimity in all federal and state criminal jury trials, regardless of historical precedent.

The right to confront witnesses

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to counsel. This amendment also includes the "Confrontation Clause", which provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In modern times, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the right to confrontation guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unlimited cross-examination. Trial courts are given broad discretion to prevent repetitive or harassing interrogation.

While the right to confront witnesses is a crucial protection for defendants, it can also be forfeited in certain situations. For example, if a defendant makes a witness unavailable for the purpose of preventing their testimony, they forfeit the right to confront that witness.

Explore related products

The Right to Counsel: From Gideon V. Wainwright to Gideon's Trumpet (Famous Court Cases That Became Movies)

$35.93

Getting Marriage Right: Realistic Counsel for Saving and Strengthening Relationships

$46.52

Right Reading: Words of Good Counsel on the Choice and Use of Books Selected From the Writings of Ten Famous Authors (Classic Reprint)

$30.57

The Thompson Memorandum's Effect on the Right to Counsel in Corporate Investigations

$21.75

Evaluating Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights (Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessments)

$43.57 $83

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

$9.99 $9.99

The right to call witnesses

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants eight different rights, including the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to be assisted by counsel.

The Compulsory Process Clause provides that defendants have the right to "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour". This means that defendants can subpoena witnesses to testify at trial and ensure their attendance. If a witness refuses to testify, the defendant can request that the court compel the witness to do so.

However, it is important to note that the right to call witnesses is not absolute. The court may refuse to permit a defence witness to testify in certain circumstances. For example, if the defence lawyer fails to notify the prosecution of the identity of a witness to gain a tactical advantage, the court may preclude that witness from testifying.

In conclusion, the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause gives criminal defendants the right to call witnesses in their favour. This right is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and allowing defendants to present their defence effectively. However, it is subject to certain limitations and conditions imposed by the court. Understanding and effectively exercising this right is an important aspect of criminal defence strategy.

The right to effective counsel

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution grants criminal defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions. This right is one of the most important tenets of the Sixth Amendment and is also known as the Assistance of Counsel Clause. The text of the clause states:

> "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Assistance of Counsel Clause includes five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the right to effective assistance of counsel, and the right to represent oneself pro se. The right to counsel was extended to state prosecutions for felony offenses in 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright, through the incorporation doctrine. However, for certain misdemeanors, there is not a guaranteed right to counsel.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to counsel implies the right to an effective lawyer. To determine whether a court-appointed attorney has provided effective counsel, courts use the test established in Strickland v. Washington. This test includes two prongs:

• Whether counsel's performance is deficient under the circumstances, with performance being measured under the standard of prevailing professional norms.
• Whether the lawyer's supposed subpar conduct affected, with reasonable probability, the trial's outcome. This relies upon but-for causation: "but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different."

If the counsel fails this test, the remedy is to have a new trial.

Frequently asked questions