"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 where in 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."

This amendment provides a person convicted of a crime with the "right to a speedy and public trial" by a jury of his/her peers selected only from the population residing within the district, which has already been officially recorded and passed as law, that the crime was committed. This also grants said person the right to know exactly what he/she is being accused of, and the reason prompting the accusation. This said person also has the right hear hear a true witness testify against him/her, and be allowed to obtain witnesses to testify in his/her defense. All citizens convicted of a crime and prosecuted in criminal court are guaranteed the Assistance of Counsel in his/her defense.

I'm not sure what the founding fathers meant by "speedy"... Perhaps their only intent was to prevent any intentional delay of a trial. Yes, many modern day trials are still quite speedy, such as the ones you might see on TV. In fact, the trials themselves are actually quite fast. However, the time between the opening of a case to the time trial begins could be months or even several years depending on the depth of the litigation (most litigation is done outside the court room. Trial is pretty much just a formal ceremony to present what has already been done to a jury) and schedule of the court.

I wasn't aware that at least one witness has to be present for a criminal trial. It just makes me question whether or not there has ever been a criminal case with no witness testimony in the history of American law.

___________________________________________________________

By ALICIA GALLEGOS, Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND — A majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices have ruled against a convicted child molester who claimed evidence presented in his case violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

The decision comes on the heels of a recent controversial Supreme Court case that ruled lab technicians must appear in court, rather than send affidavits only.

The local case centers on 40-year-old Richard Pendergrass, of South Bend, who was convicted of child molesting in 2007 for impregnating a female relative.

A doctor determined the 13-year-old victim was pregnant after she became ill at school, according to court documents. The girl revealed to her mother that Pendergrass was the father and that the abuse started when she was 11. Shortly afterward, the teen had an abortion.
 
An investigation led to the aborted fetus being sent for DNA testing, according to court documents, and examinations found that Pendergrass had a 99.9999 chance of being the aborted fetus’ father.
But during Pendergrass’ trial, he objected to the court admitting documents detailing the DNA analysis, insisting that without the actual lab technicians, the paperwork was hearsay.

The protest related to the recent ruling of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, a case in which drug affidavits deeming a substance to be cocaine were ruled as insufficient evidence. Instead, the historic case ordered lab technicians be in court to back up their claims and be present for cross-examination.

In the Pendergrass case, the prosecution did present live testimony from two lab experts, one who supervised the lab that conducted the report and another who had specific knowledge of DNA.
But Pendergrass argued the actual lab tech should have testified.

In their 11-page ruling, three of five justices found that Pendergrass had the chance to confront witnesses who were directly involved in the analysis, unlike the Melendez-Diaz case, who "confronted none at all."

The judges ruled the witnesses who testified had personal knowledge of the DNA results and were competent to address challenges to the tests.

Two other justices, however, dissented, finding that the Melendez-Diaz precedent points in a different direction.

"The record is clear that it was (the lab technician) who examined the aborted fetus specimen and buccai swabs taken from (the victim)," the dissenting opinion reads. "But (she) was never subjected to the rigors of cross-examination on either the examination she performed, the testing she conducted, or the results she researched."

Pendergrass was sentenced to 65 years in prison for child molestation.


I chose this article because it deals with a man who believed his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated because he believed he was denied the right to hear a witness testify against him.





I chose this video because it deals with jury selection in a criminal case.