Amendment Six

Greg Hinkle

Amendment Six of the Constitution reads, “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 defense,” Due to the limitation of time and space the series I am writing on the Bill of Rights is quite brief. There are volumes of information and case law on each amendment; therefore, I encourage readers to do further study on these subjects. Five of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights deal with juris-prudence, rights of the accused, and limitations upon the justice system.

There has been no real time line to define what would constitute a “speedy” trial. There are circumstances that extend the time frame in which a person goes to trial; gathering of evidence, preparing for an adequate defense to name a couple. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Barker v. Wingo that the prosecution may not excessively delay a trial for its own advantage. The Supreme Court ruled in Strunk v. United States, that if a defendants right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned.

The amendment gives the defendant the right to a “public trial” but the Court has ruled otherwise in cases such as Sheppard v. Maxwell. Once again, just because the Supreme Court has ruled a certain way does not make the decision right. The court has been in the habit of loosely interpreting the constitution instead of ruling strictly on the way it was written. An example of this is the misuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the way it has been applied. The Supreme Courts loose interpretation in Wickard v. Filburn, the mid-west wheat farmer that was prohibited from growing wheat for his own use was not the intent of our Founding fathers. When it comes to constitutional law, one must study the intent of the Founding Fathers which can be found in the Federalist Papers. In some cases, excessive publicity may hinder a defendants right of due process. The accused may request a closed trial, but in all cases there must be a compelling reason for a trial to not be public.

The amendment continues, “by an impartial jury;” in other words, an unbiased jury. Each side may question potential jurors to determine bias and the jury is made up from a cross section of society. Those of us who have had the privilege to be called for jury duty know the process. The right to an impartial jury is an important element to a free people. The amendment goes on to state that a defendant must be tried within his state or district in which the crime was committed. This was to prevent one from being hauled off to a far away land, as in the colonists shipped to England for trial.

It never ceases to amaze me at the wisdom the Founding Fathers penned into a document that put chains on government to keep it from running rough shod over the people. Each concept of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a link in that chain. I believe many of these principles we have taken for granted and may not understand what life here in this great country would be like without them. I fear we may find out. Please feel free to contact me at my email, ghinklesd7@gmail.com or give me a call at 827-4645.