Amendment+6+(4)

Home

Period 4

=Court cases:=

//Powell v. Alabama// (1932)

This case was held against nine young African Americans who were accused by two white women of rape. When the case came to court, the attorney provided to the defendants stated that he would not formally represent them and therefore they required different counsel but they didn’t have time to consult with any before the court proceedings began. The case was ruled in favor of the white women but this ruling was overturned when it was appealed to the Supreme Court because the defendant were not provided counsel and therefore the trial was not fair. This case reinforced that everyone has the right to counsel in capital cases, however only federal and not state.

//Johnson v. Zerbst// (1938)

Two U.S. Marines were convicted of possessing counterfeit money and, although they received counsel during preliminary hearings, they were not provided counsel during the trial itself. All in a single day the men were notified of their charges, tried, and convicted and then shortly late sentenced to a federal penitentiary. Some time went by because the men didn’t know their own rights and did not know the trial was unfair because they were not provided counsel. When they went to Supreme Court, their ruling was reversed on the premise that they were not provided counsel. This case decided that the right to counsel must be granted regardless of whether the defendants know that they are entitled to counsel or not. The right to counsel must, for this reason, be stated before each case so the defendant knows that they have such a right.

//Escobedo v. Illinois// (1964)

Danny Escobedo was accused of shooting his brother-in-law. He was arrested and taken to the police station. When he was questioned he was denied the right to speak to his attorney, one that he hired himself. He also happened to be at the station at that time. During the questioning he incriminated himself. At this point, he was unable to see his attorney. If there is suspect narrowed down in a crime, the accused has the right to talk to an attorney. If suspect asks for an attorney and are told they cannot have one. Then this is a violation of the 6th amendment. This is why the Supreme Court ruled that Escobedo’s constitutional right had been violated.

//Norris v. Alabama// (1935)

Norris was a young African American that was accused of rape. He had been tried and convicted of the rape. Norris stated that his amendment was violated because when the jury was chosen his race was excluded. The State commented saying that they did not realize not having an African American on the jury violated any rights. The State also stated that when the jury was chosen they did not pick by race or color. After further research it was found that African Americans were not called to be on a jury in the counties this case took place in. The research also showed that there were African Americans more then adequate to be on the jury. This showed that African Americans were not chosen as a result of their color and race. The Court determined this unconstitutional.

Patton v. Mississippi (1948)


 * Convicted of


 * In this case the young man was denied a fair jury.
 * 30 years no jury member of his race.
 * Question: Was there denial of equal protection in the selection of jurors? Answer: yes
 * This case has changed: The equal protection act was violated in this trial. The man should have had some African American people in the jury so it could be a fair trial. The solution to this problem was to let African Americans in the jury depending on the case.

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)


 * Convicted of simple battery, a misdemeanor that is punishable by two years in prison and a fine of $300
 * He asked for a trail with a jury, but was denied, because, in the state of Louisiana a jury was granted only for capital or imprisonment cases.
 * the 6th amendment was broken
 * After this case in the state of Louisiana everyone was able to have a trail with a jury, not just capital and imprisonment cases.

Gideon V. WainWright (1884)

Clarence Earl Gideon was a poor middle-aged man. He was convicted of a crime, breaking and entering/burglary. Gideon had to go to court but when there, he didn’t have any money for an attorney. He requested for one in front of the court. The court in formed Gideon that the only time the court could appoint counsel was when the defendant was charged with a capital offense. Gideon felt as if he didn’t have a fair trail and thought Judge McCrary should of made it fair. He was sentenced to five years, there he study all law books to get a fair trial. Finally the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional and Gideon’s appeal was accepted. Gideon was appoint an attorney but denied them, and went and got his own which the government paid for. Gideon won the trial and was free again after two years.

Coy V. Lowa (1988) Coy was convicted of sexually molesting two thirteen-year-old girls. The girls were separated from Coy, he could see them but they couldn’t see him. He felt the sixth amendment was violated because your supposed to be face-to-face. You might upset the rape victim or abused child if they see the person.

Changing interpretation: The interpretation of the 6th Amendment did not change until 1884, during Gideon V. WainWright, which involved a case in which the defendant was denied the right to counsel because he could not afford one and it was not a capital case. This was then deemed unfair and appealed to the Supreme Court where the verdict was overturned. Over 50 years later, in 1938, during Johnson v. Zerbst, it was determined that the right to counsel must be offered to the defendant regardless of whether they knew they had such rights. It was clarified that defendants must be made aware of their rights because if they are not informed of their rights it could lead to an unfair trial.

Brittany Ramos I think that in ten years the amendment will not change much. Over the years the sixth amendment has been broken, but the same parts have been broken several times. Things that are protected under the sixth amendment are routine in court. As a result it is hard to change the 6th amendment in anyway. The cases, like the Gideon case, shaped the 6th amendment to what it is today. I think this amendment has changed as much as it can and there is little more that can be changed. In the future, I think the interpretation will change. The right to an impartial jury will change. There are going to be different types of people as time goes on. So there may be a different way the courts decide who will be on a jury. As technology changes I think the right to confront a witness might change. In rape cases the victim may not want to see the rapist and I think the way they allow a defendant to confront the witness, without the witness being seen, will change. Those are just a few things that may change as time and technology change.

Aeesha Jones I think in ten years the amendment will stil the same, it shouldn't have to be changed at all it's pretty clear what it says. In the cases that I looked through about the 6th amendment showed how this amendment was broken and fixed to fit the cases. I'm pretty sure when this amendment is either challenged or broken it will be modified to fit the case.

Amber Kuntz I think the amendment will not change much. Kara Diehl

I think that it could be possible that any person taken into custody //must// have an attorney present, whether they want one or not, so that there is someone with them who understands the legal system better than they do and can oversee that their rights are protected throughout the entire process. Also, since many people acquire attorneys when they cannot afford ones of their own, the courts may not earn enough funds from the government to support to pay all the attorneys being appointed to people. I feel that since so many people these days are unemployed and therefore cannot afford their own lawyers that consequently they will need to find a new way to pay the appointed attorneys. For example they may decide that the people found guilty will be required to work off the money that is owed to the attorney for their services or if the defendant is found innocent that the plaintiff will need to pay for their appointed attorney. This way, the attorneys are not using up all the funds and court funds can be used for other things.