What are some controversy to the sixth amendment?

Answer 1

try searching up Guantánamo Bay. Its a detention camp operated by Joint Task Force since 2002. Its a valuable base with prisoners captured from the 2002 Afghanistan war. The Bush administration captured 775 Afghan prisoners and transferred them to the detainment camp. Critics allege that the prisoners are being denied basic human rights and justice by being held for so long without trial (Speedy Trial Clause). However, Pentagon officials contend that the laws of war entitle them to hold "enemy combatants" without trial for the duration of hostitlities.

Answer 2

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 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 of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnessesagainst him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Right to a Speedy Trial

Smith v. Hooey, 393 US 374 (1969)

A defendant in federal prison charged with a Texas state crime was denied the right to a speedy trial when Texas still had not prosecuted him for the crime after seven years. Held that the case must be thrown out.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972)

Held that violation of the speedy trial clause must be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account four factors: 1) length of delay (lower court, generally 6-8 months); 2) reason for delay; 3) whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; 4) degree of harm to the defendant caused by delay.

Strunk v. United States, 412 US 434 (1973)

Held that a defendant in custody on different charges maintains the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial on new charges. The Court threw the case out after a 279 day wait.

Right to a Public Trial

Estes v. Texas, 381 US 532 (1965)

In a case that attracted national media attention, the Supreme Court ruled media presence in the courtroom could negatively affect the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial, and allowed the courts to please reasonable restrictions on media in the courtroom.

Waller v. Georgia, 467 US 39 (1984)

Held that the public trial clause may be waived, but only in circumstances where an open hearing would be prejudicial. Four criteria apply in making a decision: 1) party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; 2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; 3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the hearing; 4) the court must make findings adequate to support the closure.

Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court, 478 US 1 (1986)

Held that trials may be closed if a public trial damages the defendant's ability to receive a fair hearing, but transcripts must be made available after the trial is completed.

Right to a Trial by Jury

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968)

Applied the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970)

Held that a jury may comprise fewer than twelve people and still satisfy Sixth Amendment criteria.

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 (1975)

Held that women could not be exempt from the jury pool because the petit jury would not be representative of a cross-section of the community.

Ballew v. Georgia, 435 US 223 (1978)

Held that a jury could not be as small as five jurors.

Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 (2004)

Required sentencing guidelines to conform to findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting it. Overturned an excessive sentence based on insufficient evidence to warrant severity of penalty.

Right to Arraignment

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876)

Held that the details of the indictment must specify the manner in which the defendant violated the law or another person's constitutional rights so he (or she) could devise an appropriate defense against the allegations. Also held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states (this precedent is often cited in Second Amendment cases).

United States v. Carll, 105 US 611 (1882)

Held the defendant must be informed of the charges against him (or her). The language in the indictment must be specific in defining the statute referenced and how it was violated.

Rosen v. United States, 161 US 29 (1896)

Held that the language in the indictment may generally describe the defendant's offense using euphemisms, as long as the meaning is clear.

Right to Confrontation of Witnesses

Pointer v. Texas, 380 US 400 (1965)

Held that a transcript of a witness testimony in a prior hearing cannot be used at trial in place of the witness because it deprives the defense an opportunity for cross-examination.

Smith v. Illinois, 390 US 129 (1968)

The state attempted to introduce evidence from an undercover informant, but refused to bring the witness to court on the grounds that revealing his identity would undermine the police operation. The Supreme Court ruled the Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness was absolute.

Bruton v. United States, 391 US 123 (1968)

Prosecutors attempted to introduce into evidence hearsay testimony of one of two defendants being tried together. The Supreme Court held that this was a Sixth Amendment violation unless the defendant (whose testimony was being used) took the stand and presented himself for cross-examination.

Maryland v. Craig, 497 US 836 (1990)

Allowed a child to testify as a witness via closed-circuit tv to spare the child further trauma. Held that the extraordinary circumstances of the cases, and the fact that the defense counsel was able to cross-examine the witness satisfied the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.

Giles v. California, 554 US ___ (2008)

Held that the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" exception allowing introduction of testimony from an absent witness only applies when the witness doesn't appear because the defendant intentionally prevented the witness from testifying. Hearsay testimony of a dead person cannot be used under other circumstances, even if the witness was absent because the defendant was being tried for that person's murder.

Right to Compulsory Process

Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14 (1967)

Applied the Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause to the states and overturned a Texas law prohibiting the defense from calling as witnesses accomplices to the same crime.

Webb v. Texas, 409 US 95 (1972)

Held that a judge's lecture that scared a witness out of testifying violated the compulsory process clause.

Roviaro v. United States, 353 US 53 (1957)

Held that the identity of undercover informants may only be kept from the defense under extreme circumstances and must consider four factors: 1) nature of the crime; 2) possible defense of the accused; 3) significance of informant's testimony; 4) any other relavant factors or circumstances.

Right to Assistance of Counsel

Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932) (aka The Scottsboro Boys)

Established that people had a right to counsel, whether they could afford it or not, in death penalty cases.

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458 (1938)

Held that the defendant has a right to counsel in all federal criminal cases, regardless of whether the defendant is aware of this right.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)

Held that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause requires states to provide free counsel to indigent defendants in all state criminal cases, not just capital punishment cases.

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 (1964)

Held as unconstitutional the police denial of counsel and failure to inform Escobedo of his constitutional rights. Also determined statements made when defendant is unaware of his (or her) rights is inadmissible at trial.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Primarily considered a Fifth Amendment case, Miranda also established someone in police custody must be informed of their constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Scott v. Illinois, 440 US 367 (1979)

Held that the court is only required to appoint an attorney in misdemeanor cases if the defendant receives a jail or prison sentence (not just the possibility of one).

Answer 3

The 6th amendment has 6 parts

*Right to a Speedy Trial - The defendant has the right to a trial quickly after arrest.

*Right to a Public Trial - The defendant may have witnesses to the trial

*Right to an Impartial Jury - The members of the jury are impartial and have no direct contact with either side, prosecution or defence.

*Notice of Accusation - The defendant has the right to know the charges pressed against his/her self

*Right to confront witnesses - The defendant may approach witness before trial but may not sway their story in any way

*Right to a Lawyer - The defendant can represent his/her self or have a lawyer of their choosing.

Answer 4

You may have a quick trial.