Amendment Six: News Article And Explanation

Paul Collopy

An Introduction to Amendment SixAmendment Six clearly states that In all

criminal prosecutions, the accused party shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by a jury of the State and district where the crime was committed.

The party being tried is also to be informed of this accusation and confronted with the witnesses against him or her. They are to have the right to a process of obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for their defense.

The Significance of this Amendment Amendment Six Guarantees a speedy trial which is

intended to prevent long-term incarceration and detention without trial. Without this Amendment a person could be amounted to a prison sentence without a guilty verdict.

A Public trial ensures that the trial is not conducted in an illegal or underhanded manner.

An Impartial jury ensures that there is not any prejudice during the case or improper bias toward a certain party.

Finally, this Amendment ensures that each party has equal power to defend themselves and hold a witness.

Amendment Six (Current Event)

Rothgery v. Gillespie Court Case (2008)-On July 15, 2002, Walter Allen Rothgery was arrested without a warrant

and appeared before a local magistrate as required by Texas law. -Following his release on bond, Rothgery made several written requests

for appointed counsel to Gillespie County officials, but county officials failed to appoint a defense counsel until after a grand jury indicted Rothgery six months later.

-Rothgery sued Gillespie County claiming that the County's failure to grant his request until after indictment violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

- Rothgery contended that his initial appearance before the magistrate constituted the commencement of "adversary judicial proceedings," which triggers an accused person's Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

After the initial hearing when Rothgerc was arrested , the magistrate judge committed Rothgery to jail, and he was released after posting a surety bond. Rothgery could not afford a lawyer originally and made several written requests for appointed counsel.

He was indicted and rearrested, and his bail was increased. He was jailed when he could not post the bail.

Subsequently, Rothgery was assigned a lawyer, who assembled the paperwork that prompted the indictment’s dismissal. 

The Living ConstitutionScholars who investigated the case argued that

the outcome undermined the Sixth Amendment's purpose, which is not merely to provide legal counsel, but to protect individual rights from unlawful restraint by the government.

This case is a true example of the living Constitution because the initial intentions of the Amendment were recognized by the jury as Rothgerv was released.

Amendment Six truly implies the importance placed on the protection and equality of the person being tried, which was not recognized by the court until Rothgerv sued and received a lawyer.

The Constitution lives on today, as lawyers serve to protect those who’s rights have been violated. This case was turned around, because Rothgerv’s lawyer recognized the true intention of Amendment Six which states a right to counsel and fair trial.

Works Cited http://firebolt.com/constitution/

amendments.htmlhttp://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-440http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothgery_v.

_Gillespie_County