Sixth.com

In recent years, a number of high profile cases related to Sixth Amendment rights have come before the Supreme Court. As the Court comes to define a more refined set of rights to representation, a number of pending Appeals-level cases are likely to further challenge existing precedents with respect to procedural rights. Two of the most prominent recent cases have led to an expansion of defendant rights in the eyes of the Court:

Riggins V. Nevada
This 1992 Supreme Court Case affirmed that no person can be forced to take medication as a precondition for remaining “competent” over the course of a trial. The case emerged when David Riggins was forced to ingest anti-psychotic medication by the State of Nevada, which he ruled had nullified his insanity defense, and, thus, denied him due process. After the State Supreme Court re-affirmed the lower court’s decision and conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

In a decision led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court ruled that the State had violation Riggins’ Sixth and 14th Amendment rights to due process on a 7-2 basis (Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented from the ruling.) As a result of the ruling, States must evaluate the medical basis for prescribing medications, and must evaluate the potential treatments in light of the defendants health (not using the trial as the determining factor over medical rationale.)

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
A recent 2006 ruling held that a defendant who is denied legal representation is is entitled to freedom according to the Sixth Amendment. The court ruled 5-4 in defense of Missouri resident Cuauhtemoc Gonalzez-Lopez, who lost an Appeals Court case after the judge removed his preferred counsel for a “lack of professional conduct”.

The majority ruling, writing by Justice Scalia, argued that the court denied counsel as a “structural error, requiring reversal”. Four Justices dissented from the ruling, including Justice Alito, joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas, who argued that the 6th Amendment provides the right to “effective” counsel, not necessarily preferred counsel and that the lower court ruling should not be automatically overturned.

One of the pillars of the American Justice system is the right to legal representation, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As the modern legal system has matured, this basic right to counsel has been extended to lower level (state, local, district) as well as Federal courts, after several fundamental challenges.

As Civil Rights and Liberties became a growing part of American jurisprudence in the early 20th century, a 1932 Powell v. Alabama case extended the rights to a publicly-appointed attorney for those “unable to employ counsel”, which was extended to the lower courts in the 1942 Betts v. Brady case “under special circumstances”. Later rulings, such as the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright case made the right more universal, providing representation to all accused felons, while the 1979 Scott versus Illinois case granted the right to all accused.

Among the most prominent cases related to the right to counsel, the Court found in Brewer versus Williams that both the 6th and 14th Amendments support the right to legal representation. The ruling emerged from the question as to whether a defendant can defer to a counsel after legal proceedings have commenced. According to the 1977 ruling, this right begins as soon as a defendant is arraigned and “confined” by law enforcement. The related case of Miranda Rights, which requires notification of a legal rights for the accused, also falls within the bounds of the Amendment.

Under the ruling, the Court determined that the accused has the right to counsel as soon as criminal proceedings have begun, a ruling that has held up on appeal in several State Supreme courts, such as the Louisiana v. Hattaway case in 1993 as well as the New Jersey Pasqua v. Council case in 2006.

A landmark Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona ruled that statements made by the accused under interrogation were only admissible as evidence when preceded with a right to consult an attorney. The 1966 decision followed the 1964 Escobedo v. Illinois ruling which limited law enforcement interrogation tactics, and established modern “Miranda Rights”.

The defendant, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping during an interrogation, but appealed the conviction, claiming his did not have sufficient legal representation during the process. Elevated from the Arizona State Supreme Court, the 5-4 decision came from then Chief Justice Earl Warren who overturned the conviction on the basis of both the 6th Amendment right to representation as well as 5th Amendment rights stating “(the accused) must prior to interrogation, be clearly informed…(of his rights.)” This ruling formed the modern “right to remain silent” as well as the core Miranda Rights.

Recent developments have challenged the Court’s ruling, including many exemptions to the rule in cases of public safety and unprompted confessions. In the 2000 case, Dickerson versus the United States, the Court ruled 7-2 (with Chief Justice Rehnquist delivering the opinion) that Miranda Warnings were Constitutional and “part of our national culture.” the 2004 Missouri versus Seibert case re-affirmed the ruling, establishing guidelines that required law enforcement to honor Miranda rights against coercion by law enforcement.