Success Stories
- California: Client charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstruction of justice after being beaten by police – CASE DISMISSED
- Indiana: Client charged with felony theft charge for allegedly stealing from a department store – CHARGES DROPPED
- Virginia: Client charged with being an accessory to shoplifting on a US military base – CHARGES DISMISSED
- Florida: 14 year-old client accused of molesting his 4 year-old adopted sister – CHARGES DISMISSED
FIRM ARTICLES
January 10th, 2006
Right To Confront Witnesses: Guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
By Swazi Taylor, Attorney at Law and Natalie Banach
There are two fundamental principles which guide the United States federal criminal justice system and which protect the rights of an accused in a criminal prosecution. First and foremost is the principle that an accused is presumed innocent. The second basic constitutional principle of law places the burden of that proof squarely upon the prosecution. These two principles are vital components of the criminal justice system which apply to a criminal defendant up until a verdict is reached.
Yet there are many more rights guaranteed to persons accused of criminal conduct or charged with the commission of crimes. These rights are contained within the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States and are also contained within the Constitutions of each of the States of these great United States. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States extends these protections to all citizens of each state within the United States. For example, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be secure in themselves and their homes and thus requires a search warrant to issue only with probable cause. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime (interpreted as felony) without a Grand Jury indictment, that no person shall be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy) and that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (self-incrimination), for example. It is the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which provides:
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 committedand 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 defense.
As the Sixth Amendment states and the Supreme Court has ruled with several exceptions that, an accused is guaranteed the right to a trial by jury. Further, an accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. This generally occurs at the arraignment, where an accused is presented with the complaint that contains the charges, which have been filed against him. It is the "confrontation clause" of the Sixth Amendment that guarantees an accused the right to "be confronted with the witnesses against him. [Exactly what does this mean?] Black's Law Dictionary has traditionally defined confrontation as the "act of sitting a witness face to face with defendant [accused], in order that the defendant may make any objections he has to the witness', or that the witness may identify the accused," Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.
The essence of the right to confront witnesses, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, is the right of an accused to confront his accusers, that is, to cross-examine (question) the witnesses who present evidence against him. The questioning is designed to uncover bias, inability to perceive or observe, and, generally, to dilute the strength of the evidence that the witness offers. The Sixth Amendment was written to prevent secret trials and to prohibit the use of using as evidence written statements from absent witnesses (hearsay), except in rare situations codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence and various State Evidence Codes. In recent years, legislators, concerned that those accused sometimes escaped punishment because the minors were afraid to testify in open court, have written special confrontation rules for minor complainants in child sexual assault cases. Consequently, new evidentiary rules were adopted to allow children to testify via closed-circuit television. Here, the accused can see the child, but the child does not see the accused. Instead, the child faces defense counsel, who conducts the cross-examination. Although every accused is guaranteed the right to cross-examine any witness that comes before them, an accused is not required to provide any new evidence or any witnesses to prove their innocence. Remember, it is the prosecution who bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, an accused may sit silent and say or do nothing. Generally, though, an accused hires an attorney to assist in his defense. The accused will work with counsel in deciding how his defense will proceed. The defense may consist of simply challenging the reputation, credibility or legality of the prosecution's evidence or witnesses. Or, the defense may merely challenge the prosecution's case by arguing that the proof does not rise to the constitutional level of proof required, that is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense of a person charged with the commission of a crime is complicated and dictated by many varied rules and principles. Therefore, if you or a loved one is under investigation or is accused, it is imperative that you seek the counsel of an experienced criminal law attorney, who can help unravel the maze of the criminal justice system and protect the accuseds rights.