Sixth Amendment

[Right to Speedy Trial, Witnesses, Etc.]

"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."

I believe that the two most important parts of this amendment are 1) the right to a speedy and public trial, and 2) the right to an impartial jury. First, the right to a quick trial is important so that no one is sitting in jail for six years while having to wait for a trial. Furthermore, if someone were guilty, it would be unfair to them to have to wait for however long, and then have their sentence added on top of that time already served waiting for the trial, just as if they were innocent, it would be unfair to make them wait in jail for a crime they did not committ. Another part that I find to be a very important part of this amendment is the trial by an impartial jury. If a black man was on trial and his jurors were all members of the KKK, that man would not stand a very good chance of winning his case, despite what the evidence proved. Therefore, the right to an impartial jury ensure that everyone is granted a better opportunity for a fair trial.

Even though this amendment sounds fair and definitely has good intentions, I don't think that it is always that way. I feel that there have been many cases since this amendment was passed where people have not had as fair of a trial as this amendment seems to promise. Furthermore, I feel that this amendment is rather vague. For instance, what constitutes the "timely manner" that is promised for a trial or being notified of charges?









In the case of Blakely v. Washington, 2004, Howard Blakely felt that he was not granted some of the rights promised in the 6th amendment. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping his estranged wife. The facts admitted to in his plea, supported a maximum sentence of 53 months, but the judge imposed a 90-month sentence after finding that the petitioner had acted with deliberate cruelty. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal constitutional right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that were legally essential to his sentence.