6th Amendment

Apprendi v. NJ (2000):

"Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty of a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." any fact that increases punishment (fact has to be found by juries, not judges!!) Charles C. Apprendi, Jr. fired several shots into the home of an African- American family. While in custody, Apprendi made a statement, which he later retracted, that he did not want the family in his neighborhood because of their race. Apprendi was charged under New Jersey law with second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, which carries a prison term of 5 to 10 years. The count did not refer to the state's hate crime statute, which provides for an enhanced sentence if a trial judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with a purpose to intimidate a person or group because of race. After Apprendi pleaded guilty, the prosecutor filed a motion to enhance the sentence. The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the shooting was racially motivated and sentenced Apprendi to a 12-year term on the firearms count. In upholding the sentence, the appeals court rejected Apprendi's claim that the Due Process Clause requires that a bias finding be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The State Supreme Court affirmed. Question Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology 5-4 DECISION FOR APPRENDI MAJORITY OPINION BY JOHN PAUL STEVENS William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist John Paul Stevens Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor O'Connor Antonin Scalia Scalia Anthony M. Kennedy Kennedy David H. Souter Souter Clarence Thomas Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg Stephen G. Breyer Breyer Yes. In an 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the Due Process Clause requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Stevens wrote for the Court that "the New Jersey procedure challenged in this case is an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition that is an indispensable part of our criminal justice system." Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer wrote dissenting opinions that were joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Blakely v. Washington (

Any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum (again, fact has to be found by juries, not judges!) Blakely pleaded guilty to the kidnapping of his estranged wife and the facts admitted in his plea supported a maximum sentence of 53 months. Washington state law allows a judge to impose a sentence above the standard range if he finds "substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so that were not computed into the standard range sentence. The judge in this case imposed an "exceptional" sentence of 90 months after determining Blakely had acted with "deliberate cruelty." Blakely appealed, arguing that this sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts legally essential to his sentence. A state appellate court affirmed the sentence and the state supreme court denied review. Question Does a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary to increase a sentence beyond the statutory standard range need to be proved by a jury and beyond a reasonable doubt? Conclusion Breyer In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that an exceptional sentence increase based on the judge's determination that Blakely had acted with "deliberate cruelty" violated Blakely's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Citing its decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Court ruled that facts increasing the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Dissents by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Justice Stephen Breyer argued the ruling will diminish legislatures' ability to set uniform sentencing guidelines.

Performance (when assistance is "ineffective" )

Below objective standard of "reasonableness" Deference to tactics Totality of circumstances

Duncan v. LA (1968)

Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Gary Duncan (Appellant), was convicted of simple battery, a misdemeanor, in a Louisiana district court. Under Louisiana law, jury trials are not granted in misdemeanor cases. The Appellant claimed the state's denial of trial by jury violated the United States Constitution (Constitution). Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases. Facts. In 1966, the Appellant was driving his car when he saw his two younger black cousins on the side of the road with four white boys. The Appellant's cousins had recently transferred to another school with reported racial problems. The Appellant stopped the car and got out to approach the six boys. A discussion ensued and the Appellant and his cousins decided to get back into the car and leave. Prior to getting into the car, a white boy testified that the Appellant slapped his elbow. The Appellant stated that he merely touched the boy on the elbow. The Appellant was charged with simple battery and requested a trial by jury. His request was denied. The trial judge concluded the elements of simple battery were proven by the state and found the Appellant guilty of the crime. The Appellant sought review in the Louisiana Supreme Court, claiming the state's denial of trial by jury was a violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied review. Issue. Does a state law granting a jury trial only in cases where the penalty is capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor violate the Constitution? Held. Yes. The Constitution was violated when Appellant's demand for jury trial was refused. Justice Byron White (J. White) delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court). Trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice because it works to prevent governmental oppression. Right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases works as a defense against arbitrary law enforcement and qualifies for protection under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution. There has been debate over whether laymen can determine the facts in civil and criminal proceedings. Critics express a concern that juries are incapable of properly understanding evidence or determining issues of fact. However, juries do understand the evidence and come to sound conclusions in most cases presented to them. We are not suggesting that every criminal trial held before a judge is unfair or that a defendant may never be treated fairly by a judge. The purpose of a right to jury trial is to reduce the possibility of judicial or prosecutorial unfairness. Dissent. Justice John M. Harlan (J. Harlan) and Justice Potter Stewart (J. Stewart) dissenting. There are a wide range of opinions concerning the desirability of trial by jury. Among the considerations pertaining to local conditions are the size of the criminal caseload, the difficulty in obtaining jurors and other circumstances bearing on the fairness of the trial. Each state should have the right to experiment with criminal procedure in the court system. The Supreme Court, other courts and the political process exist to correct any experiments in criminal procedure that prove fundamentally unfair to individuals. Discussion. Trial by jury is an integral part of the criminal system. It is necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges and against judges who are too responsive to higher authority. Trial by jury is also a safeguard against overzealous prosecutors. The primary safeguard by trial by jury is to act as a protective mechanism - buffer function

Important Information

Citizens' self-government: participatory democracy ... Participatory democracy emphasizes the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. Community confidence in the administration of justice: gives us confidence that the law is applied fairly. No U.S. Constitutional Right to court-appointed counsel beyond first appeal.

Strickland v. Washington (1984):

David Washington pleaded guilty to murder in a Florida state court. At sentencing, his attorney did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric evaluation. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Mr. Washington to death finding no mitigating circumstances to rule otherwise. After exhausting his state court remedies, Mr. Washington sought habeas corpus relief in a Florida federal district court. He argued that his Sixth Amendment right was violated because he had ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." It then remanded the case to the district court to apply this standard and determine whether Mr. Washington's counsel was sufficiently prejudicial to justify the reversal of his sentence. Question What standard should be applied to determine whether a convicted person's Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated so as to require reversal of a conviction or to set aside a death sentence? Conclusion The Supreme Court held that: (1) counsel's performance must be deficient; and (2) the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the majority, the Court counseled that in making a showing of deficient performance, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel's representation fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness." The Court also noted that to show prejudice, the defendant must show that there is a "reasonable probability" that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. Here, the Court reasoned that Mr. Washington's counsel was not unreasonable. Moreover, the Court stated that even if counsel was unreasonable, counsel's conduct did not cause sufficient prejudice to Mr. Washington to warrant setting aside his death sentence. Justice William J. Brennan wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. He viewed the death sentence as per se cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Consequently, he would not have upheld Mr. Washington's sentence. Justice Thurgood Marshall also wrote separately, dissenting. He disagreed with the majority's holding in that in its attempt to make a uniform standard, it created one so malleable as to be virtually useless.

Scott v. Illinois (1979):

However, other factors that might need to be considered: costs to state CRJ system; how can we know in advance there's no real jail time; record future consequences (when reoffend, harsher punishment due to prior criminal record); stigma? Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and/or one year in jail. Question Did the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel? Conclusion A plurality held that Illinois had not violated the Constitution. Writing for four of the justices, Rehnquist clarified the Court's holding in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) and argued that states could only sentence a convicted criminal to imprisonment if that person had been represented by counsel. Since Scott was not sentenced to imprisonment, even though the applicable statute allowed for it, the state was not obligated to provide counsel. Rehnquist called that line of reasoning "the central premise of Argersinger."

6th Amednemnt

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. Finally, if the police and the prosecutors think they have a lot of proof that you committed a crime and want to have a trial, the Sixth Amendment sets rules for having a trial to make sure that it's fair. The person accused of a crime has to be told what he's being accused of, and he has his own chance to ask questions whenever anyone says he did something wrong. He also has a chance to bring people to court who can help tell his side of the story. The Sixth Amendment also makes sure that he will have a lawyer to help him in court, and a public trial where people from his own neighborhood get to decide whether he did what the police and prosecutors say he did.Speedy and Public Trial: The defendant has the right to a fast and open trial. Impartial Jury: The accused has a right to a jury that must be impartial. This means that the jury must not carry any bias that could hinder due process. Notice of charge(s): The government is required to notify the accused of the "nature and cause of the accusation." Felony charges are done with indictment charges while misdemeanors are charged by information. Confrontation Clause/Witness Calling: The defendant has the right to examine the witness pool made against them in order to assure that due-process rights are upheld and accusations are brought up on fact rather than hearsay. This clause also ensures that defendants are allowed to call upon witnesses on their own behalf. Attorney Rights: The accused are granted the right to their own choice of legal counsel for all criminal prosecutions. This means they can even represent themselves!

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972):

Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. During the bench trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney. when facing jail time Question Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a right to counsel to defendants who are accused of committing misdemeanors? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR ARGERSINGER MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS William O. Douglas Douglas Potter Stewart Stewart Thurgood Marshall Marshall William J. Brennan, Jr. Brennan Byron R. White White Warren E. Burger Burger Harry A. Blackmun Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Powell William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court found that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required states to provide an attorney to indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes. In this case, a unanimous Court extended that right to cover defendants charged with misdemeanors who faced the possibility of a jail sentence. Justice Douglas's plurality opinion described the intricacies involved in misdemeanor charges and the danger that unrepresented defendants may fall victim to "assembly-line justice." Thus, in order to guarantee fairness in trials involving potential jail time, no matter how petty the charge, the Court found that the state was obligated to provide the accused with counsel.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963):

Layperson vs. trained prosecutor isn't a fair trial; Justice shouldn't depend on defendant's $$ why right to attorney is important? Facts of the case Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Question Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Conclusion Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered the opinion of the 9-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that the framers of the Constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply a watered-down version of the Bill of Rights to the states. Since constitutional questions are always open for consideration by the Supreme Court, there is no need to assert a rule about the relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. In his separate opinion concurring in judgment, Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel as a protection of due process, and there is no reason to apply that protection in certain cases but not others. Justice John M. Harlan wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision represented an extension of earlier precedent that established the existence of a serious criminal charge to be a "special circumstance" that requires the appointment of counsel. He also argued that the majority's opinion recognized a right to be valid in state courts as well as federal ones; it did not apply a vast body of federal law to the states.

Prejudice (when assistance is "ineffective" )

Reasonable probability but for unprofessional errors, verdict would be different No U.S. Constitutional Right to court-appointed counsel beyond first appeal.

Baldwin v. NY (1970):

Syllabus Appellant was charged with a misdemeanor in the New York City Criminal Court. Under § 40 of the New York City Criminal Court Act all trials in that court are without a jury. Appellant's motion for a jury trial was denied, he was convicted, and given the maximum sentence of a year's imprisonment. The highest state court affirmed, rejecting appellant's contention that § 40 was unconstitutional. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 399 U. S. 67-76. 24 N.Y.2d 207, 247 N.E.2d 260, reversed. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, joined by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that defendants accused of serious crimes must, under the Sixth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, be afforded the right to trial by jury, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, and though "petty crimes" may be tried without a jury, no offense can be deemed "petty" for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized. Pp. 399 U. S. 68-74. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concluded that the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury applies to "all crimes," and not just to those crimes deemed to be "serious." Pp. 399 U. S. 74-76. Page 399 U. S. 67

Why is a jury so important to the administration of the justice that must be recognized in state proceedings? -

The primary safeguard by trial by jury is to act as a protective mechanism - buffer function Citizens' self-government: participatory democracy Community confidence in the administration of justice: gives us confidence that the law is applied fairly.

Right to jury trial

The right to trial by jury in a criminal case resides in both Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution ("The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury") and the Sixth Amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"). But the right isn't as broad as those texts might suggest, meaning that many defendants have to settle for judge trials, where the court decides whether the defendant is guilty. Serious Offenses Only petty offenses don't invoke it. For purposes of this right, a serious offense is one that carries a potential sentence of more than six months' imprisonment. (Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).) If the penalty is six months or less, the crime is serious only if the sum of its penalties are weighty enough. The Supreme Court decided in one case that up to six months' incarceration or five years' probation, plus a $5,000 maximum fine weren't enough to make a certain kind of DUI a serious offense. (U.S. v. Nachtigal, 507 U.S. 1 (1993).) Likewise, in another case, it decided that a first-time DUI was merely a petty offense where: the maximum imprisonment was six months there was an alternative penalty of 48 hours' community service while wearing DUI-offender identification there was a maximum fine of $1,000 defendants had to undergo alcohol-abuse education, and defendants automatically lost their licenses for 90 days.