6

th

Amendment

(Section 2)

Description
Right to an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. To
be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Interpretation: The right to a fair and just jury that is not bias. The person
being accused of the crime has the right to know what evidence they have
against him (that may or may not exonerate them). The right to confront the
accuser in court, this includes the right to be present at the trial as well as the
right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.

Civil Liberty?
Civil Right?
Civil liberties are constitutional and other legal protections against
the government actions. They are set down in the bill of rights, 1 st
10 amendments to the constitution.
The 6th amendment guarantees the accused the right to be brought
before a judge to prove their innocence, the right to know
accusations, a speedy trail, and an impartial jury.

Political Cartoon
This cartoon shows that the right to an impartial jury mean the jurors cant know
anything about you, they cant google you, read a newspaper about you or watch what
people are saying on television about you. The trial must be fair and just without bias.

Fun Facts

Sometimes a trial may be moved to a different location in order

to get an impartial jury.
The amendment allows for witnesses to be forced to come to
court and testify. This is called a "subpoena".
The Sixth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791.
The Sixth Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights by James
Madison
The rights in the Sixth Amendment apply to all the states.
While an accused person can represent himself in a trial, the
court can stop this if the accused is not mentally stable.
The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment
provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the rightto be confronted with the witnesses against
him."
To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and
understand the serious nature of the trial process;
To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify
against him; and

 To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by

observing that witness behavior.

Supreme Court Cases

Parker V. Gladden
Parker was convicted of second degree murder. He petitioned for post-conviction relief, in which
the trial court found at a hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court found
that a bailiff assigned to shepherd the sequestered jury had stated to a juror, "Oh, that wicked
fellow, he is guilty," and to another juror, "If there is anything wrong [in finding him guilty], the
Supreme Court will correct it." Both statements were overheard by at least one regular juror or
an alternate. This ultimately got Parker convicted of his crime.
Question: Was the comment made by the bailiff a violation of the Sixth Amendment?
Answer: In a decision of 8 to 1 in favor of Parker, the Court ruled that the statements were a
violation of Parkers right to an impartial jury stated in the Sixth Amendment. They reversed his
conviction.
Significance: It strengthened the Sixth Amendment, and it gave criminal defendants in any court
the opportunity to an impartial jury.

Pointer V. Texas
Pointer and Dillard were arrested in Texas for robbing Kenneth Phillips by assault, or violence,
or by putting in fear of life or bodily injury. This was in violation of Texas Penal Code Art. 1408.
At the hearing, the DA conducted the prosecution and examined witnesses, but neither Pointer
nor Dillard had a lawyer. Dillard tried to cross-examine Phillips but Pointer did not. Since

Phillips was chief witness, he gave his version of the alleged robbery in detail. Phillips then left
for California not intending to return to Texas. Phillips testimony was used at the hearing as
evidence. Pointers counsel objected saying that Pointer did not cross-examine. However, the
court denied the objections, because they said that at any point Pointer could have crossexamined but chose not to.
Question: Was the use of the testimony a violation of Pointers Sixth Amendment rights?
Answer: In a 9 to 0 decision in favor of Pointer, the Court ruled that Pointer was protected under
the Sixth Amendment. The introduction of such testimony, which was given when Pointer was
present without being represented by a counsel, constituted a denial of his Sixth Amendment
rights.
Significance: Sixth Amendment provides that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witness against him. Therefore, the case strengthened
the Sixth Amendment, and that this guarantee was applicable to the states via Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.