Sixth Amendment - Essay Example

The Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of an accused person to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Each of the factors and processes that compose criminal trials are contained in the Sixth Amendment. These processes contain the right to a jury and public trial, to be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”, to be able to confront “witnesses against him”, to be provided with facilities to obtain witnesses and to have the right to legal representation.

(US Constitution, Sixth Amendment) The right to a speedy and public trial has two important aims. The right to a speedy trial is calculated to ensure that the accused is not unduly remanded in custody while awaiting trial. It safeguards against the possibility that an innocent person should have a criminal charge hanging over his head for an unreasonable period of time. (Head) The requirement for a public trial ensures that the judicial process is accountable and that under public scrutiny a public record of the trial will aid in judicial review of the process via the appellate system.

The right to an impartial jury is calculated to further ensure that the criminal trial process is free of prejudices and unfairness. Jury selection as practiced reflects the intent of the Sixth Amendment by providing a vetting process that safeguard against jurors serving who might be predisposed to prejudices against the accused person, the victims or the criminal process in general. (Head) It also attempts to aid in the selection of a jurors who have not been or will not be influenced by media reports so that the accused will only be judged by the facts presented in evidence at his or her trial.

The right to confront witnesses is crucial to the element of fairness within the ambit of the Sixth Amendment. It lays the groundwork by which the prosecution is required to meet the burden of proof. At a trial the witnesses are required to provide sworn testimony of the criminal claim with the accused present. The right to confront those witnesses gives way to the practice in which the accused if he decides may either by himself or through his legal council cross-examine those witnesses. The idea is to test the veracity of the evidence and to ensure that the witnesses are credible.

By the same measure the accused is entitled to call his own witnesses if he deems necessary. For instance he might be able to present alibi evidence capable of proving that he could not have committed the crime since he was not in the vicinity of the crime scene at the relevant time. The assistance of council clause contained in the Sixth Amendment is crucial to the fairness and efficiency of the criminal trial process. (Head) This right to assistance of council is reflected in the Miranda warnings given to persons upon arrest and indicates the importance of permitting the accused person to have access to legal council from the moment of arrest to the conclusion of the criminal prosecution process.

Question One Arrest is the process by which the accused person is initially informed that he or she is suspected of having committed an offence and will usually be at least temporarily deprived of his or her liberty. (Hall, 406) Arrest, unless executed pursuant to a warrant for a refugee who has been previously convicted is primarily used in the initial stages of the prosecutorial process. In other words an arrest typically takes place prior to the defendant’s formal charge. Following an arrest the accused person is usually charged with an offence and can be admitted to bail pending the trial or he can be remanded in custody awaiting the trial.

This is the pre-trial detention stage. (Hall, 412) The arrest is executed pursuant to an investigation of a criminal offence and detention is the process that precedes the prosecution of the criminal offence and this is the most basic distinction between arrest and detention.Question Two Carl’s response to finding his wife in bed with John could reasonably be defined as provocation, an essential element for the finding of guilt on a charge of voluntary manslaughter. (Hall, 98-100) The question turns on whether or not a reasonable person would have lost control in the circumstances in which Carl did.

Voluntary manslaughter is established if one of two elements are present. They are adequate cause and sudden passion. Adequate cause will be established if the defendant is suddenly confronted with a situation that causes anxiety, fear or anger to such a degree that he is provoked to act as Carl did. However, it is important that there is no time to reconsider otherwise premeditation, a prerequisite for murder will be present. (Hall, 98-100) It might be argued that Beth’s attempt to dissuade Carl could have given him time to reconsider and therefore introduce the element of premeditation.

However, it is uncertain whether or not Carl had been dissuaded since the gun went off in a struggle and ultimately struck and killed John. It would appear that the killing was negligent and the charge should therefore be reduced to involuntary manslaughter. (Hall, 98-100) Beth however does not incur criminal liability since her part in the shooting was purely for the purpose of preventing a crime altogether. Any act in anticipation of defending the life or property of another is a defence to criminal offences.

(Hall, 223) BibliographyHall, Daniel. (2004) Criminal Law and Procedure. Dehmar Learning.Head, Tom. (n.d.) The Sixth Amendment. Available online at: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/6th_amendment.htm Retrieved May 16, 2008