Brushfire of Freedom
The Armory
Note: Originally published June 9, 2009 at Brushfire Sparks
“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 where in 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 witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence (sic).”
It should be noted at this point that a significant portion of the Bill of Rights is focused on “the accused” and the judiciary. The Founders had direct experience with the misuse of judicial authority. Several had lost property, possessions, even family and their own lives to the judicial practices of the monarchy. They knew the history of England, and of the Church, and how “trials” had found certain people “guilty” of various unfounded charges, or in some cases never tried but simply imprisoned indefinitely.
The sixth amendment deals with the necessity for a defendant to receive a quick, public trial by a jury of peers. There have been several cases that have dealt with “speedy” trial. The most significant, Barker v. Wingo, set for parameters used to define the “speedy” trial including the length of and reason for the delay and the impact to the defendant. The speediness of the trial is on the side of the defense, and prevents excessive imprisonment without due process.
A “public” trial does not mean 100% open to the public. The Supreme Court has determined that restrictions can be placed on access if excessive publicity could impact due process. The focus is on the fairness of the trial, and restricting public access to prevent undue publicity from impacting the results. The right to a “public” trial creates a level of transparency the helps ensure government compliance with due process, and provides additional protection for the rights of the accused.
The right to a jury trial is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, but has always been dependent on the nature of the offense. Offenses punishable by six months or less in prison are not covered by a jury requirement. You have the right, under the Constitution, to be judged not by a single person, but by a group of citizens who reside in the area in which the offense has occurred. If an individual is accused of multiple crimes in many districts, as was the case with Michael Vick, then any of those districts can be chosen for the location of the trial and the selection of the jury. The purpose is simple. When an offense is committed in a certain district, it is the citizens within that district who are impacted by the crime. It is thus right and just for those individuals to sit in judgement, to determine guilt or innocence, based on the evidence provided, and in some instances to define the sentence for the crime. This is the ultimate demonstration of government by the people, as it places the power of the judiciary directly into the hands of the people.
The accused also has the right to know the charges made against them, and the right to confront witnesses brought forward by the accuser, which in many cases is the government. Again stemming from practices of the past, the Founders wanted to ensure some level of integrity in the judicial proceedings. The accused is also allowed to call witnesses in their favor, something we simply assume is standard practice, but in fact was not necessarily part of early court proceedings. This prevents the accused form being “railroaded” through the system without an opportunity to call into question the accusations made. All of these requirements are protected rights under the Constitution.
Finally, the right to representation is provided for in the sixth amendment. This is the remaining basis for the Miranda rights that are so familiar to those of us who watch “Law and Order”. The right to council for defense is again designed to ensure the accused, innocent until proven guilty, has a level of expertise in their defense that equals the level brought by the prosecution. Image for a moment that you were required to play a game of poker to prove your innocence in a legal proceeding. Your opponent, the player for the prosecution, has been working for the state in the role as “poker expert” for ten or so years. You have never played a game of poker in your life. You are most assuredly going to lose the game and be “proven guilty” unless you have the right to the assistance of another poker player who can play on your behalf and has the skills of you coming opponent. The defense council provides recommendations, questions witnesses, and protects the rights of the accused, ensuring the rights provided for in the Constitution are maintained for the defendant.
Can you imagine a justice system in the US without the sixth amendment? You could be accused of crimes and arrested on charges, but you would not know the charge until the trial. You would not see your accuser, you would stand alone without council, and you could be tired anywhere in the country, with a total stranger sitting as judge, jury, and executioner. The sixth amendment, in conjunction with the fifth, provides the basis for the blind justice that is a shining example for those around the world. A trial by peers, a speedy trial, with the right to confront the accuser, call witnesses, and have council for support. These are cornerstones of our judiciary, often taken for granted, but vital to the US judiciary. They are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and a key to justice in America.
Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home
Copyright 2010. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.