Talk:Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.

WikiProject United States      (Rated Start-Class)

United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Thing	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

[edit] Who passed the sixth amendment?

Who passed the sixth amendment? (anon)

Passed in 1795: See United States Constitution and United States Congress (anon)

The above bit is incorrect. The entire Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments, was passed and ratified in 1791. Xoloz 13:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crawford

We should mention Crawford v. Washington and change the Witnesses section to call it "Confrontation Clause." I also think the whole Witnesses section can be tightened up. Might also put in Davis v. Alaska and Ritchie v. Pennsylvania, although that might be too much. I'll wok on it when I have a minute. Mrees1997 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Confrontation Clause...Questions

in criminal cases - what we learn is we have the right to confront. i believe the actual sentence reads - 'to be confronted'. with todays technology, what if a defendant could confront, through close circuit television, but was not confronted by a physical appearance. is the physical appearance regarding jury trials and criminal cases tradition or is it required? and what if a jury really had to base its conclusion upon the facts only? --Cservices 09:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a really good question. As I understand it (not a lawyer...), the Q is, "does the defense have an opportunity to crossexamine?" Witnesses in hoods, behind screens, or on CCTV seem to've been accepted @1 time/another (cf DC's putative "Joker v Batman"). For those who recall (or have videotapes of it...), this was dealt with in an episode of "First Monday" a few yrs back. Trekphiler 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See Maryland v. Craig — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yellowstone

maybe someone should write up something on the yellowstone anomaly?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4647041 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.150.153 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Miranda v. Arizona

Isn't Miranda v. Arizona a case based on the 5th Amendment, not the 6th amendment? (I'm not a lawyer or law student, so I'll leave it to someone else to make the edit). --Hey8 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Miranda involved the Fifth Amendment, in particular the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The decision was also affected, however, by the right to counsel found in the Sixth Amendment. The Court stated: "The presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion." Harlan's dissent criticized the decision on that basis. He argued that "the Sixth Amendment ... should properly have no bearing on police interrogation." Accordingly, I think Miranda should remain in the list of relevant Supreme Court cases. JamesMLane t c 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead cleanup

I have made minor changes in the lead. I do not think, for example, that the Supreme Court has ever applied the provision of the amendment regarding court districts to the states in the same way it applies to the national government. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jury Nullification

The concept of Jury Nullification should be inserted somewhere in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.184.127.34 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of sourcing

Except for the text of the Sixth Amendment, there's no footnoting or links regarding what is in the article. With that in mind, I have added a tag at the top of the article calling for more sourcing. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revoced?

I think the speedy trial part has been abolished some time ago by SCOTUS, at least for federal cases? I mean the ethnic hindustani designer of the B-2 stealth bomber's jet propulsion is being held for 3 years now on espionage suspicion and still no trial for him until October 2008, even though he has been a full US citizen since 1968. 91.83.18.103 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)