Talk:Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who passed the sixth amendment?

Who passed the sixth amendment? (anon)

Passed in 1795: See United States Constitution and United States Congress (anon)

The above bit is incorrect. The entire Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments, was passed and ratified in 1791. Xoloz 13:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Crawford

We should mention Crawford v. Washington and change the Witnesses section to call it "Confrontation Clause." I also think the whole Witnesses section can be tightened up. Might also put in Davis v. Alaska and Ritchie v. Pennsylvania, although that might be too much. I'll wok on it when I have a minute. Mrees1997 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yellowstone

maybe someone should write up something on the yellowstone anomaly?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4647041 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.150.153 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Miranda v. Arizona

Isn't Miranda v. Arizona a case based on the 5th Amendment, not the 6th amendment? (I'm not a lawyer or law student, so I'll leave it to someone else to make the edit). --Hey8 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Miranda involved the Fifth Amendment, in particular the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The decision was also affected, however, by the right to counsel found in the Sixth Amendment. The Court stated: "The presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion." Harlan's dissent criticized the decision on that basis. He argued that "the Sixth Amendment ... should properly have no bearing on police interrogation." Accordingly, I think Miranda should remain in the list of relevant Supreme Court cases. JamesMLane t c 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

lead cleanup

I have made minor changes in the lead. I do not think, for example, that the Supreme Court has ever applied the provision of the amendment regarding court districts to the states in the same way it applies to the national government. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Confrontation Clause...Questions

in criminal cases - what we learn is we have the right to confront. i believe the actual sentence reads - 'to be confronted'. with todays technology, what if a defendant could confront, through close circuit television, but was not confronted by a physical appearance. is the physical appearance regarding jury trials and criminal cases tradition or is it required? and what if a jury really had to base its conclusion upon the facts only? --Cservices 09:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a really good question. As I understand it (not a lawyer...), the Q is, "does the defense have an opportunity to crossexamine?" Witnesses in hoods, behind screens, or on CCTV seem to've been accepted @1 time/another (cf DC's putative "Joker v Batman"). For those who recall (or have videotapes of it...), this was dealt with in an episode of "First Monday" a few yrs back. Trekphiler 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See Maryland v. Craig — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the conditions for admissibility misstated. Under Crawford testimonial evidence is admissible if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross examine the accuser and the accuser is unavailable at trial. If you use a negative statement you need to use the disjunctive - testimonial evidence is inadmissible if the defendant did not have a prior opportunity to cross examine the accuser or the accuser is available for cross examination at trial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgard5000 (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

Are you simply requesting a grammar fix be made? If so, feel free to do so yourself. SMP0328. (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jury Nullification

The concept of Jury Nullification should be inserted somewhere in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.184.127.34 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing

Except for the text of the Sixth Amendment, there's no footnoting or links regarding what is in the article. With that in mind, I have added a tag at the top of the article calling for more sourcing. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Revoced?

I think the speedy trial part has been abolished some time ago by SCOTUS, at least for federal cases? I mean the ethnic hindustani designer of the B-2 stealth bomber's jet propulsion is being held for 3 years now on espionage suspicion and still no trial for him until October 2008, even though he has been a full US citizen since 1968. 91.83.18.103 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Compulsory Process Clause

Most notably absent is a section on the Compulsory Process Clause. I'll go write that article if someone wants to sum it up here. The House of Representatives has published a free annotated Constitution courtesy of your Federal tax dollars at GPO Access, if anyone wants to find more citations to various court cases dealing with Constitutional issues in general. Gx872op (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel there should be a section on that clause, then go for it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apprendi

There is no reference to Apprendi v. New Jersey. This decision was expanded this year by Alleyne v. United States. I plan to add material regarding these cases, but everyone else should feel welcome to do so. SMP0328. (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]"

Wasn't the original intention of the above simply to mean that the government couldn't forbid an accused person from having counsel? In other words, if the government wanted to get someone (like an Al Capone), they could get him by arresting him and making sure he was put away for good (because he wasn't allowed to have a lawyer)? Was it only in the 20th century that Justices took the literal meaning of the words and extended the implied meaning that the government had to provide counsel? __209.179.13.130 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That federal and State governments were never allowed to deny counsel. In the 20th century, the Supreme Court started requiring the providing of counsel (see Powell v. Alabama (1932) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)). SMP0328. (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering but that wasn't the point of the question. If you got into a time machine and went back to 1787 and asked John Adams or James Madison about this very point, would he say that the 6th Amendment does or does not require the government to pay for an accused person's attorney? This point should be made clear in the article. __209.179.13.130 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That subsection refers to all Supreme Court decisions regarding when a government needs to appoint counsel for indigent defendants. When did such a requirement come about? Before Powell, the Supreme Court had not interpreted the Constitution to have such a requirement. Does that mean this requirement existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted, was created by the Bill of Rights, by the Fourteenth Amendment, when Powell was decided, when Gideon was decided, or some other time? The answer should be left to each reader, rather than the article answering for them. SMP0328. (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Should it? Or is there sourcing that says when? That is, a source that expressly says (frex) the Framers meant it to be so? Or the dissenters in a case before Powell? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)