The sixth amendment is indeed a right that carries tremendous importance with its name. It constitutes for many protections which Mallicoat (2016) summarizes by saying it “provides for the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Provides the right to be informed of the nature of the charges, to confront witnesses against oneself, and present witnesses in one’s defense. Provides the right to an attorney.” Having an impartial jury of one’s peers is extremely important in efforts to eliminate bias and a subjective, limited range of mindsets. If this cannot be obtained in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, one may request trial to be held elsewhere, such as in the case …show more content…
Racial discrimination is greatly alive in today’s world. Consider a trial in which an African American male is being accused of murdering a middle aged Caucasian woman. A jury composed completely of middle aged Caucasian women is not impartial which increases bias and prejudice, potentially leading to an unfair verdict. Failure to be knowledgeable of the nature of ones’ charges automatically promote unfairness. The accused would ultimately be clueless and left in the dark throughout the criminal justice process, by not knowing the charges filed against him and why. Witnesses testifying against the defense tend to feel pressured into telling the truth when confronted by the defendant in court (Annenberg, n.d.). Therefore, without this right in place, witnesses of the prosecution may be more subjected into lying to make their case, although they are under oath. Also, the accused may not be allowed to fully tell their side to the story or argue their cases to its fullest potential should they not have this right. In addition, most people living in the United States are not fully aware of their rights or knowledgeable of the criminal justice system and, for this reason, cannot effectively represent themselves in court. Should they have no choice but to, they are likely to receive a more severe punishment, one that a defense attorney may argue to not …show more content…
Firstly, the courts could save money by not having to provide public attorneys to those who cannot afford to obtain a private attorney. Secondly, police would not be held accountable if they arrest a subject without stating why and/or question them before Mirandizing them. In my opinion, the Sixth amendment is one that holds a great value of importance to accused individuals. Should it not exist, the number of individuals wrongly or unusually incarcerated in the United States would be significantly higher and the Nation would be taking steps away from having a just criminal justice
The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, Dexter was in jail for 25 years since 1982, and the appeal was still in process to the Supreme Court. Also, based on the jury selection on exhibit B, document one, there were only white people in the final jury, and African Americans were struck peremptory by prosecution. Dexter did not have an impartial jury because white people may favor his opposed side due to the different race. According to Batson v. Kentucky, the USSC also determined that peremptory challenges used to exclude jurors on the basis of race could be challenged by the defendant. It was not fair for Dexter to not have the same race people as him in the jury. In addition, the Sixth Amendment also says that both federal and state courts must provide a lawyer if the accused cannot afford to hire one. Even though Dexter did have an attorney, his attorney was not organized and prepared. The adequate attorney was not as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because he admitted that “he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene photographs…has not viewed the prosecution’s witness list.” He had not done anything that could help defend Dexter. He didn't even call witnesses in the court to help Dexter. Strickland v. Washington also supports this because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction that his rights had been violated when his lawyer did not provide enough evidence to avoid the death
Throughout time there have been many amendments to the United States Constitution. Some have had little to no effect on the population. One amendment that this writer will take a look at is the Fourteenth Amendment. The wording of the amendment has been debated here recently but bottom line it abolished slavery. This amendment also made an attempt to equalize everyone that is born here in America or naturalized. The ripple effect of this change to the constitution is still being felt today. It is hard to imagine living in a world where the African American community was not considered equal to the white man. A ground breaking distinction in the language written out in the document was that of it applying on the federal level as well as the state jurisdiction. This is especially important as we see the civil union marriages have conflict
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
It is 1776, the United States had just declared it’s Independence from England and one of those reasons for departing was the requirement to house British soldiers at anytime. After the French and Indian War England felt the need to thousands of soldiers in the colonies and an colonial quartering act was passed in 1765.When the British required the quartering of soldiers in the colonies it had passed in England that quartering of soldiers was not required. This quartering act on the colonies along with overtaxing lead to the start of the Revolution.Once the Americans won the war and had need to draft a constitution for the newly formed country, the exclusion of this requirement had to be added to the Bills of Rights.
The right to have trial by jury is an easy and simple right letting someone to be able to choose to have their fate be decide by a group of people with having different opinions from different minds letting them have a better chance of finding out the truth, because people have different perspectives in what they see. Which is also a very important right to the freedom we have and to our country. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Which defines as if someone gets charged over twenty dollars, then they’re able to ask for a jury to hear their side of the case before they lose their money and once the jury makes their decision they can not change it. This Amendment is important to our freedom because into the decision of the Farmers while they were writing on the Bill of Rights they thought it would only be fair to have an equal court system.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
For hundreds of years Americans have been growing up with the notion that it is a right to own a gun. Since the creation of the second amendment, people all over the United States have been able to guns for private use. Guns operated by the public are said to have a variety of uses such as, being able to protect oneself if conflict arises, grants the ability to put food on the table, and are used in competitions shooting targets against other people. But for many people guns have been seen as the root of all evil. Anti-gun users think that guns cause a variety of unexpected and innocent deaths. They also think that there are not enough laws in place that allow just about anyone to purchase a gun. The question of should guns be legal to all citizens has plagued our society. Do you think it is morally right for anyone to arm themselves and use it when they deem it to be necessary? Or do you think that the 2rd amendment seem unnecessary and outdated law that needs to be rewritten? These questions are just two of many that have thrown back and forth between pro-gun and anti-gun users.
Imagine getting a ticket and deciding not to pay the fine by the deadline. The court will issue a notice for you to pay for it or you will be charged for misdemeanor. You have the option to go to court and if you can’t afford a private lawyer, then the court will assign you a public defender, or a lawyer appointed by the court of no cost to you.Your right to have a lawyer and a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”).
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
American citizens accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against them, to bring witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of legal counsel. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln decided that such constitutional...
The First Amendment is crucial in protecting the five fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of petition, and freedom of assembly. The Fourth Amendment is significant for it protects the individual’s privacy from the government and from government harassment. The Sixth Amendment is valuable since it provides the legal framework of the criminal legal system and to protect the accused person from abuse of power. Of all the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment are the most
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
Miranda v. Arizona is a case that revolutionized the rights of an accused while in custody and interrogation. The Supreme court leaders based the rights of Mr. Miranda by the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment has been interpreted though the decision of supreme court rulings into the right to remain silent in an interrogation in order to prevent the accused to testify against himself. This amendment also protects any person from double jeopardy from the same crime, gives him or her a grand jury, and it requires for due process of law to come in effect in case a citizen is denied him or her from their right of life, liberty, or property.
The eighth amendment of the U.S Constitution has been a key part to the justice system from the moment it was created. It provides the basic rights that everyone deserves. The eighth amendment is very important because it guarantees many “freedom from” rights. For example, it protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishments. Without the eighth amendment many people would be punished in an inhumane manner based on the morals of the judge. The eighth amendment is crucial to the U.S Constitution because it promises that all citizens are guaranteed their rights, including the citizens who are felons and display criminal acts.
If most cases went to trial, the likelihood of the accused posting bail or the judge releasing the accused on their own recognizance is seldom therefore, jails would be crowded with individuals awaiting court dates. According to an article "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty" by Jed S. Rakoff "In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial." This is infringing people 's right based on the sixth