The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
When most people think of the Sixth Amendment, they think of the right to counsel; however, the Sixth Amendment affords one more than just this right. First, let’s examine the right to counsel itself.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel differs from the Fifth Amendment right to counsel that many associate with Miranda Warnings. Unlike the Fifth Amendment right, which attaches when someone invokes their Miranda Rights, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches in a criminal prosecution after the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings.
Adversarial judicial proceedings are those such as initial appearances, arraignment, bond hearings, etc. After the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, such right applies to all critical stages of the proceedings and counsel must be present unless waived.
Critical stages are those such as preliminary hearings, post-first appearance interrogation, post-indictment lineups, psychological exams, competency hearings, etc. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense specific. This means that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel only applies to the crimes in which counsel has been retained to defend.
For example, if someone has retained counsel at their arraignment for a burglary, police would not be able to question the defendant without counsel present, but police could question the defendant about a murder they suspect the defendant committed five years prior. Ultimately, the distinction between the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment right to counsel is that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after the initiation of formal adversarial judicial proceedings and applies to all critical stages of prosecution and such right is offense specific
The Right to Trial by Jury
Second, the Sixth Amendment affords a right to trial by jury. In Duncan v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court determined the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury extends to any crime punishable by more than six months of incarceration. Thus, if someone is convicted and sentenced to two years of imprisonment, then they have a right to trial by jury.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana determined there is a right to a unanimous jury verdict. If someone is convicted of a crime without a unanimous jury verdict, then their constitutional rights have been violated.
While jury trials are an important part of criminal trials, one may waive a jury trial. A defendant may waive a jury trial as long as their waiver is knowing and intelligent. If a defendant knowingly and intelligently waives their right to trial by jury, then they will have a bench trial—a trial before a judge alone. Ultimately, the right to trial by jury is one of the most important aspects of the Sixth Amendment.
The Right to Reasonably Effective Counsel
Third, the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants the right to reasonably effective counsel. Counsel is presumed to fall within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance; therefore, a defendant must overcome this presumption.
In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court laid out a two-part test to determine whether a defendant’s counsel acted effectively. First, the defendant must show that their attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. This essentially means that the defendant’s attorney did not act as a reasonable attorney would under similar circumstances.
Second, the defendant must show he or she was prejudiced by their attorney’s deficient performance. Prejudice is determined by assessing whether there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
For instance, if an attorney had presented evidence of an alibi, then the defendant would not have been convicted. A defendant must prove both of these requirements to overcome the presumption that their attorney acted effectively.
Additional Sixth Amendment Protections
In addition to these Sixth Amendment rights, several other rights exist. Under the confrontation clause, defendants have the right to confront adverse witnesses. If a defendant is not allowed to confront a bystander who claims to have seen the criminal act, then the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses is violated.
The Bruton Rule is another Sixth Amendment consideration. Under the Bruton Rule, a defendant’s confrontation clause rights are violated when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession implicating the defendant is introduced at a joint trial. A Bruton issue may be fixed by separating the trials or redacting such testimony.
Overall, the Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants with an array of rights to protect them from unlawful prosecution. If you are involved in a criminal matter and need representation or simply have general questions, King Law’s team of attorneys in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee are here to help you. Call us today at 888-748-5464 to schedule a consultation.
