Lesson 6 of 10
The Sixth Amendment: A Fair Criminal Trial
Speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation, witnesses and counsel.
The text
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.
That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the County in which the crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.
In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.
What it plainly means
Anyone accused of a crime has the right to:
- a speedy and public trial;
- an impartial jury from the state and district where the crime happened;
- be told the charges;
- confront the witnesses against him;
- compel witnesses in his favor to appear; and
- the assistance of counsel.
History and the Founders' intent
Secret trials and distant courts were tools of tyranny. The Declaration of Independence condemned the Crown "for depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury" and "for transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." The 1603 treason trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, convicted after Lord Cobham's out-of-court examination and letter were read to the jury while the judges refused Raleigh's plea to "Call my accuser before my face," was the classic example of what the Confrontation Clause forbids. A jury of one's neighbors was seen as the people's own check on government power in every criminal case.
Key Supreme Court cases
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963): states must appoint counsel for felony defendants who cannot afford a lawyer.
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972): set factors for judging speedy-trial claims.
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004): "testimonial" statements of a witness who does not testify at trial are inadmissible unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020): convictions for serious crimes require a unanimous jury, in state as well as federal courts.
What it means for you today
If you are charged with a crime, you will be told the charge, tried in public before a jury of your community, and may confront and cross-examine your accusers. If you cannot afford a lawyer and face jail, the court will appoint one. Jurors matter: when you serve, you are exercising this protection on behalf of your neighbors. Tennessee's Article I, Section 9 and Colorado's Article II, Section 16 secure the same rights under state law, with Tennessee's text adding the right "to have a copy" of the accusation.
Check your understanding
This lesson is educational and is not legal advice. Laws and procedures change; confirm current rules with the official sources linked above.