Sixth Amendment In The United States Constitution

To start off, the jury is an important role when it comes to going to trial. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to an impartial trial. A jury trial usually consists of six to twelve personnel within the community. There is a process called voir dire in which the selected jury goes through a series of question to determine their mindset and to ensure that they aren’t favoring one side over the other. Both the prosecution and defense team have a chance to select and question the jury.

6th Amendment I personally find that out of all the amendments the most important one is the 6th amendment. Reason being that it is crucial in aiding the judicial process from wrongly persecuting innocent people and it allows our democratic process to continue without preventing innocent people for taking the fall while punishing those who harm it. It keeps justice in check, keeping laws in line and rulings to be fair. The 6th amendment helps the defendants have an attorney when they are unable to afford one.

The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the

Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be

This may cause the jury to be indecisive between what the actual case and what the media portrays it to be. The amount of media released for cases creates a negative impact within the courts and makes it difficult for a fair trial. When juries are uncertain about a case or a suspect, they result to social media platforms and news coverage that will provide them with more information and depth into the case. ‘’But if the case unfolds in the media, by the time a case gets to court, the supposedly impartial jury (or even the judge) may have already heard information and allegations (not admissible by court standards) that have caused them to seriously prejudice the parties’’. (Nedim, 2014).

This essay will look at the effects of a jury being abolished and a jury trial existing. There are certain requirements expected from jurors. These include: being aged 18 to 70 years of age, being registered on the electoral roll that they are randomly chosen on by a computer, and the individual has lived in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for 5 years after the age of 13. This allows the justice process to be fair and equal as all ethnicities have the opportunity of being randomly chosen allowing a bias free justice process.

Jury selection in capital cases often takes weeks, if not months, as the “death qualified” jurors are isolated by the State. Numerous studies have shown that those who survive the death qualification process are inherently biased towards conviction. People who have no qualms about the death penalty favor the State. They would be more likely to convict in a jay-walking

I am writing separately because I do not believe Florida’s sentencing scheme violates Hurst’s sixth amendment. I agree with the dissent that Apprendi and Ring should be overruled in favor of something more in line with Walton and our precedent prior to the new millennium. I concur in the judgment, however, because the jury’s role in Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. Florida does not require unanimity or a feeling of responsibility by the jury in the death sentencing scheme. Also, Florida only requires a simple-majority vote to render its verdict instead of one that is unanimous.

“Other arguments against majority verdicts include that they compromise the criminal standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt", given that at least one juror has a doubt; create a greater risk of convicting the innocent, leading to miscarriages of justice; and reduce public confidence in jury verdicts” (SMH 2005). However, a number of positives that occur after and during the trial largely outweigh the few issues that arise. There are far less hung juries. More than 80 cases resulted in hung juries during 2005. Majority verdicts as opposed to unanimous verdicts to better keep the integrity of the trial by helping prevent juror bribery or intimidation; it may also help stop rogue or stealth jurors (LY Lawyers 2017).

This was determined from way back when America was first being created. Originally the U.S was control by the British but one of the main reasons for our independences from them other than the fact that the U.S. did not like their high taxes but also was because the jurors and their rights. According to the video “Annenberg Classroom: Juries” when a judge did not like the juries verdicts they were fine and threatened to have their nose cut off. American wanted their judicial to be fair and equal for all. However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail.

According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sixth+amendment, The Sixth Amendment was needed for the accused to have the right of a fair and speedy trial, and the right of a fair judgement. For example, the accused is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The accused is to also have the Assistance of Counsel for his/her defence. According to http://public.getlegal.com/legal-info-center/6th-amendment/, “During the jury questioning process, called voir dire, both the prosecution and the defence may ask potential jurors questions whose answers might show bias.” Meaning, the accused(defence), and the prosecution(offence), can bring someone in, to ask questions that could possibly show of major importance.

According to Amendment VI, “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...” Now, to break that all down, this all means that everyone has the right to a fair trial by an impartial duty, and who are you? You guessed it, the impartial jury. And what is Amendment VI? Yup, a Constitutional right.

Television shows such as CSI gives them the belief that any type of evidence is prominent to coming to a conclusion. Jurors are accustomed to the idea that evidence does not lie, since that is what’s showed on television. From watching television shows and court cases movies gives jurors conception that judges, lawyer, and evidence are what bring to concluding their verdict. Jurors expect the evidence to be conclusive since the technology is so advanced. Law & Order, not pertaining to any specific case usually have witnesses, and at times jurors expect the eyewitness to have solid facts as to applying it to the verdict.

No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people. Interviewer: [gathers all his papers]

I think that I would like to be on a jury and experience what is required of a juror, I think everyone should be a member of the jury at least once in their lifetime. Having to experience the juries’ duties on a civil or criminal case, in some instance would be hard. Especially in a murder case involving children or battered women. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?