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
February 16th, 2006
By Donna Ortlieb, Esq. and Natalie Banach
Rights of the Accused
It has often been said that the fairness of a society can be determined by the treatment of its least favored citizens, and by definition, those accused of crimes fall into this category. Subject to the loss of liberty and sometimes even of life, those accused of crimes face potentially life-changing situations. Thus, before consigning them to such a fate, a just society would want to be exceptionally sure that the accused were in fact guilty of the crimes with which they were charged - in other words, that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is from this vantage point, that defendants' rights begin to make sense. In order for a society to function with fairness and justice, a certain level of protection for the accused must be guaranteed. In the United States criminal justice system, these protections include the right to a speedy and public trial before a jury of one's peers.
These three specific rights of the accused, which are clearly spelled out in the Sixth Amendment, provide a substantial amount of protection for any citizen accused of a crime. Moreover, as important as they are for the accused, they also provide a variety of safeguards for society at large.
A system of justice in which the innocent were jailed, the guilty ran free and in which prosecutors were able to go after political opponents, would be anything but just. Therefore, just as any free society could not exist without the right of free speech and expression, no democracy could exist without a fair justice system in which those accused of crimes were treated fairly and ensured their rights. It is in this context that some of the rights of the accused will be more clearly spelled out.
Right to a jury comprised of impartial peers
By the time of the American Revolution, trial by jury was an accepted and established right in the colonies. Seen as a basic form of protection, the colonists stood steadfast in their insistence to maintain trials by jury. At the time, the conventional juries were comprised of twelve jurors, chosen at random from the widest population.
One of the reasons the right to a trial by jury is offered to all criminal defendants is that it is a means of prohibiting oppression by the government. At its inception, the idea was that those being accused of serious crimes should be protected from unfounded charges and corrupt judges. Thus, providing the defendant with the opportunity to stand trial in front of a jury offers a unique safeguard against overzealous prosecutors and biased or eccentric judges.
A jury is usually composed of twelve members, although this isn't always a strict requirement. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that all that is needed is that the jury be large enough to promote deliberation, that it be free from outside influences, and that it present the opportunity for a large cross-section of the population to be represented. The actual selection process permits lawyers from both sides to screen out potential jurors that have a bias (called a "challenge for cause"). Each lawyer is also allowed to eliminate a handful of jurors simply because they feel the person may not be sympathetic to their cause (called a "peremptory challenge"). However, a juror's race, sex, religion or national origin is not a proper basis for exclusion. The exclusion of any specific segment of the population from jury service poses the risk of eliminating certain qualities of human nature and varieties of human experience from the process. Such exclusion deprives the trial of a perspective on human events that may have a significant, but unknown, importance.
The jury system is designed specifically to protect the rights of the accused. The idea is that a panel of one's community members - one's peers - is best qualified to make important decisions of innocence or guilt. In addition, the jury system enhances democracy by allowing ordinary citizens the opportunity to participate in the legal system, and to assess whether the system is functioning properly. Thus, a free and fair trial by a jury composed of one's peers remains a vital right of both the accused and society at large.
Right to a Speedy Trial
The right to a speedy trial is among the most important rights of the accused. Its Intent is to prevent unnecessary and oppressive pretrial incarceration, and to preserve the ability to prepare and present a defense for the accused. The right commences when criminal prosecution begins and extends only to those people that have been accused of a crime. The idea is that the criminally accused cannot be confined in a jail cell indefinitely, and must be brought before a magistrate in a timely manner.
In order to assess whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial, four factors are usually considered: the length of the delay, the reason behind it, the defendant's assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant. If a judge finds that a defendant has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial, the result can be dismissal of the charges or even the reversal of a conviction.
The public at large also has an interest in maintaining the right to a speedy trial. Not only do people in jail have to be supported at the public's expense - through taxes - but a delay often diminishes any rehabilitative effects that the criminal justice system is intended to have.
Right to a Public Trial
The right to a public trial is imperative because it provides that the defendant's family and friends, the community and the press can all observe whether the government is upholding the rights associated with the legal system. When trials remain secretive and no knowledge about them is distributed to the public at large, the opportunities for corruption increase greatly. Public trials, on the other hand, demand accountability by their very nature. Conclusion: A fair criminal justice system is one of the hallmarks of a well-functioning democracy. The rights associated with such a system, namely that of a speedy and public trial presided over by one's peers, protect not only those accused of crimes, but also society at large. The rights of the accused therefore also become the rights of the public, and guarantee that everyone may examine how the system is functioning and whether it is fair.
Donna Ortlieb is an Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorney in Southern California. Donna Ortlieb has practiced Criminal law for the past 7 years. Donna Ortlieb has successfully defended clients in criminal misdemeanor and felony matters. Donna Ortlieb has experience in jury and bench trials, arraignments, bail and O.R. release hearings, entry of negotiated pleas, sentencing hearings, restitution hearings, civil compromise hearing, and administrative law hearings. Donna Ortlieb is a member of the criminal appeals panel of Appellate Defenders, Inc., San Diego, the American Bar Association, Orange County Bar Association, National Association of Criminal Defense Layers, and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Donna Ortlieb attended Southwestern University Law, graduating in 1994 and obtained her undergrad from University of California, Irvine in 1991. (Updated Feburary 2006)