Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
In our information age sometimes the right to a public trial guaranteed by Amendment VI interferes with the opportunity for an impartial jury also guaranteed there (especially in the district wherein the crime was committed).
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 defence.
The principles are sound though that a person deserves to be confronted with the accusations against them and those making the accusations, and that they should have the power to present a defense against the charges.
2 replies on “Constitutional Amendment VI”
The right to an impartial jury is fine. But it seems that we have somehow twisted the word ‘impartial’ to mean ‘ignorant’ instead. Why is it that only people ignorant of all of the facts can be considered to be impartial?
In a nation where we rely on the intelligence of the average American, we should be more trusting in the ability of potential jury members to apply only the facts disclosed in the case to their judgment on the matter. This happens all of the time anyway where an objection is sustained and the jury is instructed to disregard a statement.
I suspect that part of this insistence on an ignorant jury is related to the fact that defense attorneys know that an ignorant jury is generally favorable to their chances of getting a confused verdict.