Full Version: Was the Sixth Amendment Violated?
Er, this is a redo of a topic that I started because of some problems associated with the original.
Emphases added:
Emphases added:
Topic: Was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution violated? Why or why not?
Original topic:
Emphases added:
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Apr 30 2005, 02:32 PM)
I found this:
Which created more questions then answers for me.
QUOTE
Bursey told the World that five months after his 2002 arrest, the state dropped all charges against him. But U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. had him arrested under a rarely used statute titled Presidential Assassinations, Kidnappings, and Threats. He was denied a jury trial, denied access to evidence, and had subpoenas quashed in a trial modeled on Attorney General John Ashcroft’s USA Patriot Act.
Bursey had been facing a six-month prison sentence, a $5,000 fine and five years of probation. The judge limited the penalty to $500. Bursey said any penalty is unacceptable. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights is handling his appeal.
sourceBursey had been facing a six-month prison sentence, a $5,000 fine and five years of probation. The judge limited the penalty to $500. Bursey said any penalty is unacceptable. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights is handling his appeal.
Which created more questions then answers for me.
Emphases added:
QUOTE(Sixth Amendment)
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.
Topic: Was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution violated? Why or why not?
Original topic:
It most definitely was. The sixth amendment does not have any qualifying words about how and why the accused should not be afforded their basic rights. The charges against this kid are absolutely laughable. It never ceases to amaze me at how this president has outdone every other president before him in silencing those who disagree. 
Ok here is what i found so far. In regards to the right to a jury trial:
USA v. Bursey
Obviously without this legal information...one would believe that the 6th Amendment WAS violated. However, it seems that it was not in this case. I am not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination...but if the Supreme Court backs this up...it IS constitutional.
The site i provided gives basically day-by-day coverage of the trial...so if there are any questions to if the 6th Amendment was violated...we should look there.
USA v. Bursey
QUOTE
The defendant has asserted several arguments as support for his request to have his case tried before a jury. However, none of these argument have merit.
Initially, despite the defendant’s arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court has for more than a century recognized that right to a jury trial simply does not attach to prosecutions for petty offenses. See, e.g., Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888); Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475-76, 95 S.Ct 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975). While the defendant expresses confusion over the definition of “petty offense,” Section 19 of Title 18 clearly provides:
As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C misdemeanor, or an infraction, for which the maximum fine is no greater than the amount set forth for such an offense in section 3571(
(6) or (7) in the case of an individual or section 3571©(6) or (7) in the case of an organization.
The offense with which the defendant is charged (18 U.S.C. § 1752) fits directly into this definition: it has a statutory maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, making it a Class B misdemeanor (see 18 U.S.C. § 3581((7)), and it has a maximum statutory fine of {p.2} $5,000, which is no greater than that provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3571((6). Thus, clearly the defendant is charged with a petty offense, for which there is no right to a jury trial.
Initially, despite the defendant’s arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court has for more than a century recognized that right to a jury trial simply does not attach to prosecutions for petty offenses. See, e.g., Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888); Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475-76, 95 S.Ct 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975). While the defendant expresses confusion over the definition of “petty offense,” Section 19 of Title 18 clearly provides:
As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C misdemeanor, or an infraction, for which the maximum fine is no greater than the amount set forth for such an offense in section 3571(
(6) or (7) in the case of an individual or section 3571©(6) or (7) in the case of an organization.The offense with which the defendant is charged (18 U.S.C. § 1752) fits directly into this definition: it has a statutory maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, making it a Class B misdemeanor (see 18 U.S.C. § 3581(
(7)), and it has a maximum statutory fine of {p.2} $5,000, which is no greater than that provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3571((6). Thus, clearly the defendant is charged with a petty offense, for which there is no right to a jury trial.QUOTE
Lastly, the defendant argues that a jury trial is necessary in this case because otherwise “there would be no way to prevent [the enforcement of] § 1752 [from] being used by the Executive for political advantage....” The defendant completely neglects to both explain the basis for this assertion or argue its merits, but he clearly fails to understand or acknowledge that in a non-jury trial, the judge performs the identical function as a jury, which assures the defendant will fully receive whatever protection he believes only a jury can otherwise provide. 2
Obviously without this legal information...one would believe that the 6th Amendment WAS violated. However, it seems that it was not in this case. I am not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination...but if the Supreme Court backs this up...it IS constitutional.
The site i provided gives basically day-by-day coverage of the trial...so if there are any questions to if the 6th Amendment was violated...we should look there.
QUOTE
I am not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination...but if the Supreme Court backs this up...it IS constitutional.
What an odd thing to say considering what you've said earlier about the Supreme Court...
QUOTE
From my point of view, the judges are holding too much power and are using it without anyone being able to do anything about it. It is my opinion that there should be a Senate committe or Congress should have some oversight over the courts to ensure that judges are upholding the constitution.
Which is it? The Supreme Court is the final word on the subject, or they are merely judges who interpret the Constitution, sometimes incorrectly?
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jun 4 2005, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
From my point of view, the judges are holding too much power and are using it without anyone being able to do anything about it. It is my opinion that there should be a Senate committe or Congress should have some oversight over the courts to ensure that judges are upholding the constitution.
Which is it? The Supreme Court is the final word on the subject, or they are merely judges who interpret the Constitution, sometimes incorrectly?
Well not to take this topic further off subject...but what i said in your quote is what i believe. But it doesnt matter what i believe at this point because the SC DOES have the final say. I still advocate more oversight than that...but my belief wont change it. So even if i believe they shouldnt have the great power they have to make decisions...their interpretations are still what must be followed by all judges everywhere in the US.
I really don't see how my statement in a previous post in any way conflicts with this topic.
Was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution violated? Why or why not?
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.
Not if it was a civil suit.
However, the attorneys actions are abuse of power, because obviously the protester had nothing to do with: Presidential Assassinations, Kidnappings, and Threats.
Also, why exactly was he arrested by the police officer in the first place? How can you arrest somone for standing on a public sidewalk and holding a sign? Thats not just abuse of power, thats abuse of power that doesnt even exist.
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.
Not if it was a civil suit.
However, the attorneys actions are abuse of power, because obviously the protester had nothing to do with: Presidential Assassinations, Kidnappings, and Threats.
Also, why exactly was he arrested by the police officer in the first place? How can you arrest somone for standing on a public sidewalk and holding a sign? Thats not just abuse of power, thats abuse of power that doesnt even exist.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jun 4 2005, 12:55 PM)
...the Supreme Court has for more than a century recognized that right to a jury trial simply does not attach to prosecutions for petty offenses. See, e.g., Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888); Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475-76, 95 S.Ct 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975)....Section 19 of Title 18 clearly provides:
As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C misdemeanor, or an infraction, for which the maximum fine is no greater than the amount set forth for such an offense in section 3571((6) or (7) in the case of an individual or section 3571©(6) or (7) in the case of an organization.
As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C misdemeanor, or an infraction, for which the maximum fine is no greater than the amount set forth for such an offense in section 3571(
(6) or (7) in the case of an individual or section 3571©(6) or (7) in the case of an organization.QUOTE(The Sixth Amendment)
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.
I am having a really hard time understanding how the Supreme Court could rule against a jury trial in the various cases sited above when the word ALL in the amendment would seem to make the intent very clear.
How could the Court seemingly ignore the word ALL in the sixth Amendment?!?!?! It would seem to me that the intent was quite clear.
As a result, I personally feel that the Sixth Amendment was violated in the case in question, and the violation of the Sixth Amendment was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the rulings listed above.
Perhaps there is an explanation to their rulings. Their rulings would certainly seem to be practical, though not necessarily constitutional.
As for why the protester was arrested originally, I can only assume that it was because he was instructed by law enforcement personnel to move along and refused to do so. In many jurisdictions (if not all of them) failure to obey an officer of the law is in itself a crime.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Jun 4 2005, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jun 4 2005, 12:55 PM)
...the Supreme Court has for more than a century recognized that right to a jury trial simply does not attach to prosecutions for petty offenses. See, e.g., Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888); Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475-76, 95 S.Ct 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975)....Section 19 of Title 18 clearly provides:
As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C misdemeanor, or an infraction, for which the maximum fine is no greater than the amount set forth for such an offense in section 3571((6) or (7) in the case of an individual or section 3571©(6) or (7) in the case of an organization.
As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C misdemeanor, or an infraction, for which the maximum fine is no greater than the amount set forth for such an offense in section 3571(
(6) or (7) in the case of an individual or section 3571©(6) or (7) in the case of an organization.QUOTE(The Sixth Amendment)
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.
I am having a really hard time understanding how the Supreme Court could rule against a jury trial in the various cases sited above when the word ALL in the amendment would seem to make the intent very clear.
How could the Court seemingly ignore the word ALL in the sixth Amendment?!?!?! It would seem to me that the intent was quite clear.
As a result, I personally feel that the Sixth Amendment was violated in the case in question, and the violation of the Sixth Amendment was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the rulings listed above.
Perhaps there is an explanation to their rulings. Their rulings would certainly seem to be practical, though not necessarily constitutional.
As for why the protester was arrested originally, I can only assume that it was because he was instructed by law enforcement personnel to move along and refused to do so. In many jurisdictions (if not all of them) failure to obey an officer of the law is in itself a crime.
Callan v. Wilson
I have read and re-read the Justices' argument and it is still unclear as to why "petty offenses" do not allow a trial by jury. I think the argument is that since the accused has a right to an appeal, that due process is being upheld. Suppose someone else can shed some light on the decision?
It does seem like an awfully strange ruling since as overlandsailor pointed out that the 6th Amendment (and Article 3 of the Constitution mind you) both call for all crimes (except impeachment) to be tried by a jury of the defendant's peers.
lederuvdapac:
From Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968):
"So-called petty offenses were tried without juries both in England and in the Colonies and have always been held to be exempt from the otherwise comprehensive language of the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provisions. There is no substantial evidence that the Framers intended to depart from this established common-law practice, and the possible consequences to defendants from convictions for petty offenses have been thought insufficient to outweigh the benefits to efficient law enforcement and simplified judicial administration resulting from the availability of speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudications. These same considerations compel the same result under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course the boundaries of the petty offense category have always been ill-defined, if not ambulatory. In the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, the definitional task necessarily falls on the courts, which must either pass upon the validity of legislative attempts to identify those petty offenses which are exempt from jury trial or, where the legislature has not addressed itself to the problem, themselves face the question in the first instance. In either case it is necessary to draw a line in the spectrum of crime, separating petty from serious infractions. This process, although essential, cannot be wholly satisfactory, for it requires attaching different consequences to events which, when they lie near the line, actually differ very little. We need not, however, settle in this case the exact location of the line between petty offenses and serious crimes. It is sufficient for our purposes to hold that a crime punishable by two years in prison is, based on past and contemporary standards in this country, a serious crime and not a petty offense. Consequently, appellant was entitled to a jury trial and it was error to deny it."
And, yes, I know, you would argue that the word "ALL" is the substantial evidence that the Supreme Court found lacking, and I would agree, since if the existing practice was what the Supremes [sans Diana, sorry, but I couldn't help myself] say it was, then why the use of "ALL?" They could just have easily made the distinction between petty and major offenses. Of course, the Framers did not have a 14th Amendment and so there could not have been any incorporation of the 6th Amendment such that the 6th would be binding on the various states, and one otherwise wonders just what criminal prosecutions that the Framers had in mind [maybe they did not envisage any "petty" federal offenses?].
By the way, it would appear that the former Justice Douglas [and former Justices Black, McReynolds, and Butler] agree with you:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/prin...us/419/949.html
Lastly, if one does not think that we are living in Orwell's Oceania, then one is mistaken, as "all" either means "all", or there's little point in having the English language and we live in Oceania and have done away with Oldspeak in favor of Newspeak.
From Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968):
"So-called petty offenses were tried without juries both in England and in the Colonies and have always been held to be exempt from the otherwise comprehensive language of the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provisions. There is no substantial evidence that the Framers intended to depart from this established common-law practice, and the possible consequences to defendants from convictions for petty offenses have been thought insufficient to outweigh the benefits to efficient law enforcement and simplified judicial administration resulting from the availability of speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudications. These same considerations compel the same result under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course the boundaries of the petty offense category have always been ill-defined, if not ambulatory. In the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, the definitional task necessarily falls on the courts, which must either pass upon the validity of legislative attempts to identify those petty offenses which are exempt from jury trial or, where the legislature has not addressed itself to the problem, themselves face the question in the first instance. In either case it is necessary to draw a line in the spectrum of crime, separating petty from serious infractions. This process, although essential, cannot be wholly satisfactory, for it requires attaching different consequences to events which, when they lie near the line, actually differ very little. We need not, however, settle in this case the exact location of the line between petty offenses and serious crimes. It is sufficient for our purposes to hold that a crime punishable by two years in prison is, based on past and contemporary standards in this country, a serious crime and not a petty offense. Consequently, appellant was entitled to a jury trial and it was error to deny it."
And, yes, I know, you would argue that the word "ALL" is the substantial evidence that the Supreme Court found lacking, and I would agree, since if the existing practice was what the Supremes [sans Diana, sorry, but I couldn't help myself] say it was, then why the use of "ALL?" They could just have easily made the distinction between petty and major offenses. Of course, the Framers did not have a 14th Amendment and so there could not have been any incorporation of the 6th Amendment such that the 6th would be binding on the various states, and one otherwise wonders just what criminal prosecutions that the Framers had in mind [maybe they did not envisage any "petty" federal offenses?].
By the way, it would appear that the former Justice Douglas [and former Justices Black, McReynolds, and Butler] agree with you:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/prin...us/419/949.html
Lastly, if one does not think that we are living in Orwell's Oceania, then one is mistaken, as "all" either means "all", or there's little point in having the English language and we live in Oceania and have done away with Oldspeak in favor of Newspeak.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.