Introduction To The Sixth Amendment Of The US Constitution

Introduction the Law the Sixth Amendment To The Us Constitution Reads

Introduction The Law The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 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” (1). The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and state laws provide guidance as to the number of days to bring a defendant to trial before this right is violated. A prosecutor may work around the “speedy trial clock” if they can show good cause for a delay, or if a defendant agrees to waive the right. One reason for the right to a speedy trial is to prevent a defendant from being held in custody only to find out that the defendant was innocent. An innocent citizen who is incarcerated in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is a violation of due process rights (2). The Facts Ben was indicted on 24 state counts of possession of fentanyl, with intent to distribute near an elementary school, and federal racketeering charges in September 2019. While Ben sat in jail, his attorney was able to delay his jury trial a few times so he could gather witnesses for Ben’s defense. In March 2020, Ben’s attorney submitted a motion to dismiss the charges for a violation of Ben’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The hearing was set for March 28. On March 15, the Governor of the state ordered all courts to close and suspended jury trials due to public safety concerns over COVID-19. Ben did not get his hearing and remained in jail. Research the Federal Speedy Trial Act and its requirements. Research the law in your home state pertaining to the number of days a defendant may be held in jail, consistent with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, for a felony and misdemeanor charge. Read United States v. Olsen [PDF]. Instructions Write a one-page explanation of whether Ben’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated, based on your understanding of the law and the 9th Circuit Appellate Court case, United States v. Olsen. Paper Formatting Double-spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with 1-inch margins on all sides. References U.S. Const. amend. 6. Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq (1974).

Paper For Above instruction

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental component of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, designed to protect individuals from prolonged detention without trial and to ensure fair judicial proceedings. In the context of Ben’s case, analyzing whether this constitutional right was violated involves understanding the statutory provisions, court precedents such as United States v. Olsen, and the extraordinary circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,” which courts have traditionally interpreted as an obligation on the government to bring a defendant to trial within a reasonable time. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 complements this constitutional guarantee by establishing specific time limits, generally requiring that federal criminal trials commence within 70 days from the arraignment, barring certain excludable periods (18 U.S.C. § 3161). This law aims to prevent unnecessary delays that could compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial, especially as delays may lead to the deterioration of evidence, fading memories of witnesses, or extended pretrial detention.

In Ben's situation, his trial was delayed multiple times due to legal strategic considerations by his defense team, which is permissible under the Sixth Amendment so long as delays are not excessive. The delay from September 2019 until March 2020 significant; however, the issue arose when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted court closures and suspension of jury trials. This unprecedented event has been recognized by courts as a valid ground for delay, provided that courts balance public health concerns and defendants’ rights.

The case of United States v. Olsen (9th Cir. 2020) provides important legal guidance. Olsen involved an extension of criminal proceedings due to court closures amid the pandemic, with the court emphasizing that delays caused by extraordinary circumstances like COVID-19 are excludable under the Speedy Trial Act if they are reasonable and the parties are kept informed. The court’s decision in Olsen underscores that delays due to government-imposed shutdowns during a public health crisis do not constitute a constitutional violation of the right to a speedy trial, especially if they are temporary and the court acts diligently to resume proceedings.

In Ben's case, his right to a speedy trial was arguably violated initially when the trial was delayed without a clear court order or excludable reason, such as judicial delay or procedural issue, especially considering the delays occurred prior to the COVID-19 shutdowns. However, once the state ordered the courts to close and suspended jury trials due to the pandemic, the delay falls within the scope of excludable periods recognized by Olsen and other case law. Courts have acknowledged that during emergencies, delays are justified, provided there is a diligent effort to reconvene trials and resolve cases as soon as circumstances permit.

State laws also influence these proceedings; many states have established their own time limits for misdemeanor and felony cases. Typically, these range from 90 to 180 days for misdemeanors and longer periods, like 180 to 365 days, for felonies, but these are often subject to exceptions for extraordinary delays. For instance, in California, a defendant must be brought to trial within 60 days for a misdemeanor and within 180 days for a felony, excluding delays caused by the court or defendant (California Penal Code § 1382). Similar standards apply in other states, emphasizing the importance of context and judicial discretion.

In conclusion, the totality of circumstances suggests that Ben’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was likely violated during the early delay period when no pandemic or court closure justified the postponement. However, once the COVID-19 pandemic led to court shutdowns, courts recognized such delays as lawful under the Olsen decision and the Speedy Trial Act, thus not constituting a violation of Ben’s Sixth Amendment rights. The case highlights the importance of balancing the constitutional right with public health emergencies and procedural laws to ensure fairness while respecting safety.

References

• U.S. Const. amend. VI.
• Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. (1974).
• United States v. Olsen, 984 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2020).
• California Penal Code § 1382.
• Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008).
• Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
• Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1990).
• Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006).
• North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969).
• In re: Court Proceedings during COVID-19, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99999.