-
Period: to
Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Timeline
-
Before: In Re Oliver
Prior to In Re Oliver, state law allowed a one-man jury within the state court of Michigan. The Catalyst for this case was when a man was called before a Michigan Court to testify in a case regarding illegal gambling and corruption. After giving his testimony, the Judge deemed his testimony false on the basis of another testimony without any further opinions. The man was given a sentence of 60 days in jail while being unable to seek counsel, prepare defense, or provide cross-examinations. -
During: In re Oliver
After the previous state decision was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the man. Setting the precedent that the right to a public trial (a trial with multiple jury) applied to state criminal hearings. The State Court was deemed unconstitutional through the 14th amendment by denying the convicted man equal protection, and the due-process of law by a one-man jury. -
After: In Re Oliver
This SCOTUS decision ultimately impacted citizens in the way where they were guaranteed the right to a public trial legally. Socially, decisions were allowed to be up to jury interpretation which MAY be biased (This will be addressed in Parker V. Gladden).
This can be applied to the future Supreme Court and state cases, in which every individual in every case is guaranteed the right to a trial by jury through the state which would not have happened had this precedent not been set. -
Before: Gideon V. Wainwright
Prior to this case, Florida state law held that an attorney may ONLY be appointed to an indignant defendant in capitol cases, meaning many individuals faced sentencing without legal defense. One of these individuals was Clarence Earl Gideon, a man charged in the Florida State Court with felony breaking and entering. While in court, Gideon asked for a court appointed lawyer which was denied to him. This ultimately led Gideon to be found guilty and charged, prompting him to file a Habeas Corpus. -
During: Gideon V. Wainwright
After the previous state decision was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Gideon, stating that the 6th amendment guarantee of Counsel is a necessary right imposed on the state This ruling set the precedent that the right to assistance of counsel applied to criminal defendants in State court by the 14th amendment. -
After: Gideon V. Wainwright
This SCOTUS decision ultimately impacted citizens in the way where they were guaranteed the right to legal representation in the court. Socially, inequalities in the court were addressed through equal representation.
This can be applied to future Supreme Court and state cases, where every citizen is now allowed access to appointed legal representation through the State. -
Before: Pointer V. Texas
Prior to this case, Texas law allowed witness cross-examinations to be denied to defendants. The catalyst for this case began when a food store owner was robbed of $300 by a man identified as Bob Pointer. 2 men, one being Pointer, were taken in for a preliminary hearing with an assistant attorney present to conduct prosecution. Pointer denied the opportunity to cross examine the owner and would end up having a transcript of the prosecution's testimony used as evidence against him indirectly. -
During: Pointer V. Texas
After the previous state decision was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the man through the 14th amendment by establishing the right to counsel as one which is fundamental and necessary as a safeguard for fair trials. This case ultimately set the precedent that the State cannot deny a person the opportunity to cross-examine a witness directly. -
After: Pointer V. Texas
This SCOTUS decision ultimately impacted citizens in the way where they are guaranteed the right to cross-examination directly, ensuring fair representation legally. Socially, the decision led to increased public awareness of constitutional rights in the civil rights era. This decision can be applied to future Supreme Court and state cases, where every convicted citizen is now allowed to cross-examine witnesses during hearings. This case significantly impacted marginalized communities in the US. -
Before: Parker V. Gladden
Prior to this case, Bailiff's were allowed to make biased remarks regarding the defense towards the jury without punishment. The catalyst for this case was when a man named Lee E.A. Parker was convicted of second degree murder in a case where the bailiff made remarks towards the jury which may have influenced the decision. When sentenced, Parker gave his wife a device to interview jury members, which is when they figured out the bailiff made remarks which may have led to the guilty sentencing. -
Before: Klopfer V. North Carolina
Prior to this case, State courts were allowed to suspend their prosecution and postpone court. The catalyst for this case was when a man named Peter Klopfer was arrested at a civil rights demonstration inside a restaurant. At his trial, the jury could not reach a sure verdict, leading the state to move for a nolle prosequi with leave which would postpone the hearing until further notice. Klopfer argued that this violated his 6th amendment rights, but the judge ruled in favor of the Court. -
During: Parker V. Gladden
After the previous state decision was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Parker through the 14th amendment by the establishment to a fundamental right to trial through an impartial jury. This case ultimately set the precedent that the State cannot deny a person's right to an impartial jury through the state court which had happened in the case after sentencing. -
After: Parker V. Gladden
This SCOTUS decision ultimately impacted citizens in the way where accountability was promoted for court personnel as seen in the highlighted misconduct of the bailiff in the ruling legally. Socially, defendants became empowered through increased fairness in trials, especially for those within marginalized communities. All of these effects can be seen in future Supreme Court and State cases, In the way where court personnel are held to a standard for strict professionalism. -
Before: Washington V. Texas
Prior to this case, Defendants were legally not allowed the right to have witnesses in their favor. The catalyst for this case was when a man named Jackie Washington and another man was convicted with murder and sentenced 50 years in prison. In trial, Washington claimed that the other man had shot the victim while he tried to stop it and said that the other perpetrator could testify. The court ultimately denied Washington's right to testimony from a person convicted with the same crime. -
During: Klopfer V. North Carolina
After the previous state decision was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Klopfer through the 14th amendment by saying that the state could not further deprive the convicted of speedy trials as due process of law. This case ultimately set the precedent that suspending a court case violates a defendant's right to a speedy trial. -
After: Klopfer V. North Carolina
This SCOTUS decision ultimately impacted citizens in the way where States were held accountable for timely trials legally. Socially, defendants were protected from prolonged legal uncertainty which may cause emotional and social harm. All of these effects can be seen in future Supreme Court and State cases, In the way where citizens now are guaranteed the right to a quick trial. -
During: Washington V. Texas
After the previous state decision was brought to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Washington by saying that the 6th amendment compulsory clause is integrated into the due process clause under the 14th amendment. This case ultimately set the precedent that barred persons charged together in the same crime from testifying for each other was in violation of the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process, and that perpetrators are allowed witnesses in their favor. -
After: Washington V. Texas
This SCOTUS decision ultimately impacted citizens in the way where systematic inequities were addressed legally. Socially, public confidence increased greatly in the legal system. All of these effects can be seen in future Supreme Court and State cases, In the way where the accused are now allowed the right to bare witnesses for themselves in a trial.