Politics/Amendment Essay

A written overview of the amendment in question. What does it say specifically?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, â€Å"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 witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence† (Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). The rights enumerated under this amendment refer to the codified rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions. Generally the Bill of Rights was incorporated in the Constitution on account of the belief that it was necessary to limit the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the federal government (Oxford Companion, 2005).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The rights of the accused in criminal prosecution are: â€Å"1) right to a speedy trial; 2) right to a public trial; 3) right to a trial by jury; 4) notice of the accusation; (5) right to confront the opposing witnesses; 6) right to compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses; and (7) the assistance of counsel or right to counsel† (Oxford Companion, 2005). The right to a speedy trial prevents oppressive incarceration before trial and ensures defense by the accused of his cause. The right to a public trial acts as a safeguard against abuse of judicial power. Moreover, it also assures the accused that he is informed of the charges against him. This is part of due process (Oxford Companion, 2005). The right to confront opposing witnesses refers to the right of the accused to cross examine said witnesses. He is also entitled to subpoena witnesses in his behalf (Oxford Companion, 2005). Finally, the accused is also entitled to be represented by counsel or a lawyer. This shall be lengthily discussed in another section of this paper. When did it become part of the Constitution?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   This amendment was ratified and adopted in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in 1791 (Oxford Companion, 2005). It was part of the first ten amendments included in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was actually proposed by James Madison. The group known as Anti-Federalists threatened that if these rights were not included in the Constitution, their states will not ratify the new Constitution. They needed clear safeguards against the vast powers of government. After a compromise was agreed upon, the Constitution was ratified in 1789 but the Bill of Rights was incorporated later and went into effect after it was ratified on December 15, 1791 (National Archives web site, n.d.). 3. What cases have come before the Supreme Court in which this particular amendment was applied?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Before the ratification of the Sixth Amendment, two statutes were enacted which in effect accorded the assistance of counsel to those accused (USGPO web site, 2005). The Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the defendant to plead his case in a federal court either personally or by counsel. On the other hand, the Act of 1790 allowed the defendant charged with treason or other capital crime to be defended by counsel which the court will assign to him (USGPO web site, 2005). Even with the ratification of the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel has limited application. It was only in the 1930s that the Supreme Court developed and enlarged the scope of the Sixth Amendment by virtue of jurisprudence.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the case of Powell v. Alabama, the Court set aside the convictions of eight youthful offenders since the trial was conducted in a hasty manner and the defendants were not assisted by counsel. The Court further ruled that there was denial of due process considering that the right to be heard is meaningless if it did not entail the right to be heard by counsel [287 U.S. 45 (1932)]. The Court succinctly explained that even if a man is intelligent and learned he may not be skilled in the science of law and may be indicted on an erroneous charge or be convicted based on incompetent evidence. More so, the defendants who are young, indigents, illiterates and are faced with an atmosphere of hostility away from their relatives [287 U.S. 45 (1932)]. Thus, it was stressed that it is imperative to be represented by counsel and it imposes a duty upon the Court, whether requested or not to appoint and assign a counsel otherwise, it becomes tantamount to a denial of due process [287 U.S. 45 (1932)]. In the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, the Court enunciated the absolute rule of appointing counsel for all federal criminal defendants. Moreover, it ruled that a waiver of such right must be clear and cannot be presumed from silence of the defendant [304 U.S. 458 (1938)].   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the case of Betts v. Brady and Progeny, the Court ruled that â€Å"the appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right essential to a fair trial† [316 U.S. 455 (1942)]. It laid down the principle that the right to be represented by counsel is not necessary in state cases involving non capital offenses except in special circumstances. This ruling was held later on after criticisms, to apply only to the incompetents such as the illiterates and retardates or to grant relief in cases of judicial abuse of power [316 U.S. 455 (1942)].   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In Hamilton v. Alabama, the rule was in capital cases, the Court must appoint a counsel for the defendant even without proof that defendant may be prejudiced without such appointment or even if the defendant failed to request that one be appointed as his counsel [368 U.S. 52 (1961)].The â€Å"special circumstances rule† was held to apply only in non capital offenses [368 U.S. 52 (1961)].   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the cases, Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957) and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 350 (1963), the Court has laid down the three categories which may be deemed as prejudicial and thus, necessitating the appointment of counsel, namely: â€Å"(1) the personal characteristics of the defendant which made it unlikely he could obtain an adequate defense of his own, (2) the technical complexity of the charges or of possible defenses to the charges, and (3) events occurring at trial that raised problems of prejudice† (USGPO web site, 2005).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The ruling of the Court in the Betts case was overturned in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright.   The Court in abandoning the Betts reasoning held that the right to assistance of counsel is imperative, basic and fundamental and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the same be available and applicable in state courts. In 1972 this ruling was held to apply to misdemeanor and serious misdemeanor cases provided that it carried a penalty of imprisonment [Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)]. Additionally, the Gideon ruling was also held to apply to youthful offenders in juvenile delinquency litigation in the case of   In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). What, if any connection is there between this constitutional issue and education?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The constitutional issue of the right to assistance of counsel is related to education. The study of law requires knowledge, skill and experience in trial proceedings. Even an educated and intelligent man who is not properly educated and trained in law is considered incompetent and unable to defend himself. Courts are created to punish and deprive the guilty of their liberties through imprisonment and other imposable penalties. Thus, it is imperative that if a person is charged with an offense in court he must be able to put a defense and be heard by a properly trained counsel. To deprive him of this would be tantamount to depriving him of due process and would render nugatory the basic tenets of the Bill of Rights. A person charged of an offense would need the expertise of a counsel so that he does not risk himself of being convicted even if he be innocent simply because he does not know how to establish his innocence. More so an uneducated man, a feeble minded person or an indigent. Consequently, it becomes the duty of the court to appoint counsel so that such person may not be denied due process.   References    Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) Betts v. Brady and Progeny, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 350 (1963) Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961) In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957) National Archives and Records Administration web site. ‘Bill of rights.’ Retrieved on November 16, 2007, from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press, 2005. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) U.S. Government Printing Office web site. ‘Sixth amendment: Rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions† 2002. Retrieved on November 16, 2007, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/024.pdf