THE TRIAL PROCESS

SIXTH AMENDMENT

Sixth Amendment Protections Right to a speedy trial

Source of the protection Constitutional Violations (Barker v. Wingo)

Length of delay Reason for the delay Defendant’s assertion of the right Prejudice to the defendant

Attachment of the Protection The accusation rule Multiple charges Ignorance of charges

Statutes of Limitations (we will cover these in class)

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

Source of Protection Constitutional Violations (Barker v.

Wingo) Length of delay Reason for the delay Defendant’s assertion of the right Prejudice to the defendant

Attachment of Right The accusation rule – U.S. v. Marion Multiple charges – U.S. v. MacDonald Ignorance of charges – Dogget v. United States

Consequences of Delay – Strunk v. U.S. Statute of Limitations

RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL

Source of Protection In re Oliver

When Applicable Closures

Government sought closures – Waller v. Georgia Defense sought closures – Sheppard v. Maxwell

First Amendment Richmond Newpapers Inc. v. Virginia

Alternatives Voir Dire Change of Venue – Rideau v. Louisiana Jury Sequestion Gag Orders

RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY

Incorporation to the States Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

Serious Criminal Prosecutions Only Non Criminal Proceedings

Juvenile Proceedings – McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) Probation Revocation – Minnesota v. Murphys (1984) Military Trials – Whelchel v. McDonald (1950)

Petty Crimes Sixth-month Standard Multiple Offenses

RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL

Waiver Size & Unanimity

Size – Ballew v. Georgia Unanimity – Johnson v. Louisiana Small, non-unanimous juries

RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY

Voir Dire Challenges for Cause Peremptory Challenges

Race - Baston v. Kentucky (1986) Gender - J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)

RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION

Defendant’s Right to be Present Absence resulting from misconduct

Illinois v. Allen Voluntary absence

Cureton v. United States

Face-to-Face Confrontation Face-to-face confrontation

Coy v. Iowa (1987) Maryland v. Craig (1990)

Cross-examination Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) Crawford v. Washington (2003)

RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS

Incorporation to the States Washington v. Texas

State & Federal Statutes Application

Roviaro v. U.S. U.S. v. Valenzeula-Bernal

RIGHT TO COMPETENCY

Test for Determining Competency Dusky v. United States

Presumption of Competence Medina v. California

Substantive vs. Procedural Right Pate v. Tennessee

CASE REVIEW

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to represent himself during trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the prosecutor from discriminatorily enforcing criminal laws against defendants.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to cross-examine witness offered adverse testimony, even if it was the defendant that called them to the stand.

In this case, the Supreme Court set out the factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that placing a screen between the testifying victim and the defendant was a denial of the defendant’s right to confrontation.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor could not exercise peremptory challenges based on race.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor’s could not intentionally destroy evidence that might be helpful or exculpatory to the defendant.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that indigent juveniles were entitled to the appointment of counsel under the 6th Amendment.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that indigent federal criminal defendants are entitled to the appointment of counsel.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors have dual duties. They must serve both not only as advocates, but also to see that justice is done.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors cannot knowingly sponsor false testimony.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors cannot vindictive prosecute a defendant by retaliating against them for exercising their constitutional right to appeal.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that selective prosecution only violates due process if it is based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is presumed competent to stand trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to compulsory process is incorporated to the states.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant facing a suspended sentences is entitled to the appointment of counsel.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a trial court could remove defendant for disruptive behavior without violating his right to confrontation.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that peremptory challenges could not be used to excuse jurors based on gender.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a trial court must grant a motion to change venue if the pretrial publicity is such that it would impinge a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s has a Fifth Amendment right to be informed that he is entitled to have counsel present during a custodial interrogation.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that indigent capital defendants have the right to appointed counsel.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that counsel, to be effective, has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into his clients case.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that prosecutor’s are obligated to disclose favorable evidence that is material to the defense.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to counsel is incorporated to the states, and thus indigent felony defendants are entitled to appointed counsel.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that indigent defendant’s facing possible jail time (even if a misdemeanor) are entitled to appointed counsel.

In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that closures of a trial will seldom occur if the media asserts an interest, because the right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the First Amendment.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a trial may continue without a defendant who voluntarily fails to appear for trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to appointed counsel on their first appeal.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that “testimonial” statement made out of court violated the defendant’s right to confrontation.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the use of closed-circuit television for the testimony of certain child sexual assault victims does not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant has a due process right to be competent while standing trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant has a procedural due process right to a determination of competency to stand trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that that the Sixth Amendment does not require the jury verdict (at least larger than 6) to be unanimous.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that juries with five or fewer jurors violate the Sixth Amendment.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to effective representation by counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to a trial by jury is incorporated to the States.

In this same case, the Supreme Court held that there are some “petty” crimes or offenses for which a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the government must have an over-riding interest in order to obtain closure of a criminal proceeding.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the “carnival atmosphere” of the trial violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the consequences of a violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is the dismissal of the charges.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial attaches only after the defendant has been accused of the crime.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that, in the case of multiple charges (where charges are dismissed and then refiled) the right to a speedy trial attaches after the second set of charges.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the State may violate the defendant right to a speedy trial even when the delay is the result of the defendant’s ignorance of the charges.