Amendment Six: Case Study

The first clause of Amendment Six is the speedy trial clause. There are several reasons that this clause is positive to the accused in a case on trial. Primarily the right to a speedy trial can prevent undue and oppression, and minimize the anxiety and concern that accompanies public accusation. A speedy trial can limit the possibility that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself. Furthermore, delaying a trial is can tamper with the evidence and witnesses because over time evidence can lose value and witnesses could forget what happened at the the crime scene or even die before the trial takes place. The right of a speedy trial can also be in opposition to the interests of the accused because it can cause the accused
Brillion was decided on March 9, 2009. June 2004 after three years of awaiting trial Michael Brillon was charged with aggravated domestic violence, and was ultimately sentenced to twelve-to-twenty years confinement. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him for lack of a speedy trial. The United States Supreme Court also granted certiorari on October 1, 2008 to determine if delays caused by a breakdown in the assigned counsel system can ever be the basis for a violation of the right to a speedy trial. The case closed with the Supreme Court of Vermont agreeing and remanding with instructions for the trial court to set aside Mr. Brillon's conviction and dismiss the charges against him. The court held that Mr. Brillon was not prosecuted within a time frame that satisfied his constitutional rights stated in the speedy trial clause and act of 1974. The Court reasoned that the state was not relieved of its duty to provide Mr. Brillon with a speedy trial because the public defenders assigned to him were mostly responsible for the delay. This case connects to the Speedy Trial clause because Brillion initially waited three years for a decision and according to his rights in the speedy trial clause this causes the case to void the amendment which would lead to Brillion winning the
Maxwell was decided on June 6, 1966. After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. This case is connects to the sixth amendment because it connects to the right of a public trial. This case is debatable because of its publicity. In this situation the court case was overly covered by media sources which caused confusion in the case. For this reason the court granted certiorari or a hold on the case because there was insufficient