Safeguards for criminal trials Today look at the Sixth Amendment – safeguards for criminal trials As there are a lot of facts and a lot of vocabulary, I’m going to use a presentation during the class

The adversarial system The prosecution bears the burden of proof (=must gather enough evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) The defendant has no obligation to cooperate. The judge is a neutral arbiter 1. What are the rights and responsibilities of each party in an adversarial system? PROS represents the government, and bears the burden of proof (=must gather enough evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) prouver la culpabilité de l’accusé avec quasi-certitude (N1) dEF no obligation to cooperate with the prosecution D may decide to confess, > which means he pleads guilty, avoids a trial, and may get a lower sentence, but he can’t be coerced into doing so The judge is a neutral arbiter, decides issues of law and ensures the correct procedure is followed The trial in an adversarial system is supposed to be a battle of equals. However the prosecurion, the government, usually has more power and resources than teh defendant. To counter this, the constitution establishes a number of safeguards for the defendnat at trial, that is what we’ll be looking at today. All the safeguards we’ll see today have been incorporated An important part of the judges role is to ensure that they are respected

A. Protection against forced self-incrimination (5th Amendment) A witness cannot refuse to take the stand, but can “plead the 5th” (refuse to answer incriminating question) If a defendant has been put under undue pressure, his confession will be excluded from evidence. The exclusionary rule The defendant can choose not to testify (= give evidence at his trial) but if he does he must answer all questions The 5th Amendment, as we have already seen in relation to the Miranda warning, Contains Protection against forced self-incrimination Neither the defendant nor other witnesses can be forced to incriminate themselves. So how does this work? Are the following statements True or False? A witness can refuse to take the stand. FALSE A witness cannot refuse to take the stand, but can “plead the 5th” (refuse to answer incriminating question) If a defendant has been put under undue pressure, his confession will be excluded from evidence.> TRUE the exclusionary rule The defendant has the same rights as other witnesses. FALSE The defendant can choose not to testify (= give evidence at his trial) but if he does he must answer all questions If a defendant refuses to take the stand, the prosecution can infer that he must have something to hide.NO – CAN’T BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT Blood or DNA seized without a warrant can be used as evidence at trial. FALSE These protections only apply to oral or written statements –other evidence such as DNA, or fingerprints do not need the witness or the defendant’s permission. However, they must be seized in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. However, these protections only apply to oral or written statements – might seem obvious but to use other evidence such as DNA, fingerprints or a bit more controversially a diary or recording do not need the witness or the defendant’s permission, as long as they have been seized under the FOURTH amendment’s warrant requirements

B. The right to a speedy and public trial If the trial is not held within 1 year the judge will dismiss the case, unless the prosecution can justify the delay The press and public can attend trials except in certain circumstances (such as child abuse cases) Right to a speedy and public trial (6th Am) This right protects against abusive prosecutions. DONT CLICK YET SPEEDY means? – quick/rapid That has been interpreted to mean within 1 years of arrest. If there is more than 1 year between arrest and trial, the case will be dismissed (T/F) F After 1 year, the judge will dismiss the case unless the prosecution can justify the delay. (« plausible reason ») PUBLIC? In practice that means that The press and the public can attend trials (and the defendants family and supporters), except ? in certain circumstances (such as child abuse cases)

C. Right to a trial by impartial jury The (petit/trial) jury: (usually) 12 citizens who decide on the defendant’s innocence or guilt A unanimous verdict is constitutionally required in federal courts In state courts with 6-person juries The right to be tried by an impartial jury is a fundamental common law right. It has been part of English law for 800 years and has always been part of American law. It is found in the 6th amendment The (petit/trial) jury: usually 12 citizens who decide on the defendant’s innocence or guilt (= (=reach a verdict) Q Does a trial jury have to be unanimous?   A unanimous verdict is constitutionally required in federal courts In state courts with 6-person juries Most states also require unanimous verdicts in 12-person juries, but that requirement has not been incorporated. The defendant can waive this right. Waive – renoncer à

D. The Accusation The defendant must know what crime he is charged with (= formally accused of) The sixth amendment also states that the accused has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”? Which simply means that The defendant must know what crime he is charged with (= formally accused of) Doesn’t have to be written – usually is (Indictment, information, complaint, charge – all )

The Confrontation Clause Allows the defendant to: Attend the trial, unless he is disruptive cross-examine prosecution witnesses at trial (question them in order to test their truthfulness and reliability) Means that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible A safeguard which is absolutely essential to the adversarial system is the Confrontation Clause. Allows the defendent to: ? Attend the trial, unless he is disruptive Disruptive - perturbateur (-trice) Can cross-examine defence witnesses at trial 3. What is cross examination? (question them in order to test their truthfulness and reliability) Hearsay – report of a statement made outside of court by a third party which is repeated by a witness in court eg Anne is testifying and she says that Bob told her he saw Carol kill the victim. (can’t be tested in court, as Bob not there, so hearsay) Generally inadmissible (although there are exceptions)

The “Compulsory Process” clause Gives the defence legal powers to subpoena favourable witnesses (= legally compell them to testify in court) What is required as a result of: the accused’s right “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” Gives the defendant legal powers to ensure witnesses who could help the defense appear in court testify – give oral evidence

4. Assistance of counsel Assistance of counsel (=an attorney) is a right for any defendant who risks a prison sentence A public defender must be provided if the defendant is indigent (unable to afford a lawyer) Assistance of counsel (=an attorney) is a right for any defendant who risks a prison sentence Afford – payer This is clearly important because someone acting on their own, defending themselves will not usually be able to provide the same quality if defence as they would get if they had an attorney working for them in court   5. When was the right to assistance of counsel incorporated? in the case Gideon v Wainright (1963)?