amendment6

Garret is doing **Carll Vs. United states 1Jake Werkmeister 2Riggins vs Nevada 3A doctor had passed a drug. The drug was later found to make a uncomfortable side effects. Later on they had found out that the doctor was informed about this but he still passed the drug. The FDA had brought it to in court. But they kept on delaying the case. 4 The decision was that he had his pharmasitical license taken away. 5 I agree with the decision no doctor should pass a harmful drug.

1. Devin O 2. Pointer v. Texas 3. Before the preliminary hearing, one of the main witnesses, (Phillips), moved to another state. Pointer's robbery accomplice tried to cross examine Phillips, but Pointer did not. Pointer's lawyer tried to object to Phillips testimony being used as evidence, but he was over-ruled. The case went to supreme court. 4. The petitioner was convicted. 5. This meant that statements made by witnesses can still be used as evidence, even if the witness is no longer able to be cross examined.

1. Chris West 2.Davis vs. Washington(2006) 3. This case involves the 6th amendment because they didn't let him cross examine and he didn't agree a speedy trial. 4. The court desided that the 6th amendment wasn't violated. 5. This affected the county so then people could be able to speak up if the don't want a speedy trial.

1.Ryan Altieri 2.WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA 3.Petitioner, who was charged with robbery, complied with the rule after failing to be relieved of its requirements. His pretrial motion to impanel a 12-man jury, instead of the six-man jury Florida law provides for noncapital cases, was denied. At trial the State used a deposition of petitioner's alibi witness to impeach the witness. Petitioner was convicted and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner claims that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, on the ground that the notice-of-alibi rule required him to furnish the State with information useful in convicting him, and that his Sixth Amendment right was violated. 4. On the ground that the six-man jury deprived him of the right to "trial by jury" under the Sixth Amendment.So the trial was reveiw and he was found guilty.

1:Devin Hogan 2:Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 3:The defendent was convicted of a felony but said that he was denied his rights to council 4:It was unanimously decided that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady 5:now everyone needs a right to court appointed attorney

1. Billy Bliss 2. Holmes vs. South Carolina 2006 3. Holmes was accused of murder and many other crimes that were going on in South Carolina. He challenged saying he had proof someone else did the crimes. He said that if they didn't review them that would go against his 6th amendment rights. 4. There was enough evidence to overturn the case. Holmes was then let go by South Carolina officials. 5. You are allowed to show any bit of evidence they may prove and innocence or guilt of a person with good enough reasoning.**


 * 1) Maria Nocerino
 * 2) Crawford vs. Washington March 8, 2004
 * 3) The United States Supreme Court held that the use of the spouse's recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant where the spouse.
 * 4) Crawford said that he was using self-defence agenst Kenneth but Sylvia (his wife) though implied that he wasn't using self-defence when he stabbed Kenneth, therefore he lost the case.
 * 5) Any out-of-court statement that are "testimonial" in nature are not admissible, unless the declarant is unavailable to testify in court, //and// the defendant will have a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her.

Eric Smuda is doing Apprendi vs. New Jersey 2000 1. Eric Smuda 2. Apprendi vs. New Jersey 2000 3. Apprendi had murdered an African American family in his neighborhhod. For this horrible crime the court made the trial alot slower as an additional punishment for his crime. This violated the 6th amendment. 4. In a 5 to 4 decision the jury found that New Jersey had violated the 6th amendment. 5. The decision had meant that New Jersey had violated Apprendi's 6th amendment rights. Now everyone has the "Apprendi Rights" which means that the court can not drag on a trial just because of the crime. //1.Juhie Patel 2. Betts v Brady (1942) 3. The petitioner (Betts) was too poor to hire a lawyer. So, he informed the court and requested one but he was denied. He argued that it went against his sixth amandment. 4. The Supreme Court overuled the case and said that if Betts would have been the defendent he would have been granted a lawyer. 5. It lets America know their limits to the 6th amendment.

Eryk is doing United states vs. Wong Kim Ark//


 * abbey thomas is doing Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998)

sam bird is doing** duncan v. louisiana

2.Powell v. Alabama (1932) 3.Powell was not given enough time to seek out friends and family for counsel, and was appointed a lawer in the court hearing, not given time to prepare. 4.Powell was given cousel, but was still guilty, because his crime was a capital crime. 5.The accused must be appointed cousel wether they can't provide it for themselves, or even non-residents.
 * 1.David C

1.Sarah Rhodes 2.Hildwin v. Florida 1989 3.Hildwin comitted first degree murder and the judge gave him a death sentence 4.The decision was that the case was affirmed 5.The decision meant that Hildwin would not get the death sentence. The impact on our country was that you can't be sentenced with a death penalty unless you have been seen by a jury.

1. Jess Brucker 2. Pointer v. Texas 1965 3. Man had preliminary hearing on robbery charge. The witness moved to another state. 4. The decision was the petitioner was convicted and the highest state court affirmed. 5. The decision ment that the man was wrong and lieing about what he had said to the judge. Its effect on the country was that you can get caught for what you do.

** = = 1. Kelly Giardina. 2. Wright vs. Van Patten. 3. The Wright vs. Van Patten trial was a speedy trial. 4. The decision was that, Musladin found that "the Majority Opinion does not comport with Musladin," and dissented from "the court's erroneous decision to allow" its original opinion "to stand as written." We reach the same conclusion. 5. The decision didn’t really have an impact on our country... Because not much was changed because we reached the same conclusion.

1.Rushi Patel 2.Escobedo v. Illinois(1964) 3.Escobedo was accused of killing his brother. The second time he was interragated, the first was without sucess, he wanted to see his lawyer. The lawyer went to the police hedquaters to find that he was going to be refused acsess to his client. He confessed, though. Escobedo thought his right to council was breached. 4.The court overturned the decision, saying he should have had the right to an attorney. 5.This means that his words in that room are void. Because of this decision, anyone who asks and is not given a lawyer, he or she are not accountable for their words in the room.

1. Grace Grieco 2. Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 3. The amendment was applied to this case because when you go into a federal court everyone is entitled to there 6th amendment right unless they want this right to be waived. 4. The two men were sentenced to jail after they were convicted of possession and uttering counterfeit money. The appeal was based on the lack of habeas corpus, which is not having legal representation at their first trial. The District Court denied their petition. 5. The decision meant that the denial for a retrial was reversed. This impacted our country because now all courts make sure you have a lawyer to represent you and your sixth amendment right is fulfilled.

1. Stephen Epstein 2. Barker v. Wingo (1972) 3. This case was applied because Barker was going to the Supreme Court and his case was delayed because of Wingo taking time to help himself in the trial. In the Sixth Amendment it says that you have the right to a speedy trial. His was case delayed. It violated his Sixth Amendment right. 4. The result of this case was that Barker could not be further prosecuted for his crime. 5. The decision meant that he got away with his crime even though he didn't get prosecuted. This decission means that if your case gets delayed you get away with your crime.

Tyler Roy Nix vs. Whiteside Whiteside stabbed a man because he thought nthat he was attacking him with it. He testified that he saw "something metallic", not a gun. His 6th amendment rights were violated because the defense denied him saying that it was something metallic, not a gun, so the counsel wasn't assisting him. There wasn't really an effect on the country because it was a small violation.

sarah rhodes is doing HILDWIN V. FLORIDA

1. Bianca Faria 2. Barker v. Wingo, 1972 3. When Barker's case was taken to the Supreme Court, it was delayed because of Wingo's slow trial. According to the Sixth Amendment, you have the right to a speedy trial. This case was applied in which the Supreme Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been denied. 4. The end result was that the case violated Barker's Sixth Amendment right and no further prosecution was taken place. 5. The decision meant that even though he wasn't prosecuted, he still was able to get away with his crime. This has an impact on our country because during a Supreme Court case, it is made sure that our right to a speedy trial is carried out.

Kate is doing Davis vrs. Federal Election Commision. Katie Lennox is doing //Gonzales v. Oregon//

1.Alex Ashmore 2.Massiah v. United States (1964) 3. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to rely on counsel as the “medium” between himself and the government. Thus, once adversary proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and deliberately elicit statements from the defendant himself. In the Massiah v United States case, the defendant had been indicted on a federal narcotics charge. He retained a lawyer, pled not guilty, and was released on bail. A co-defendant, after deciding to cooperate with the government, invited Massiah to sit in his car and discuss the crime he was indicted on, during which the government listened in via a radio transmitter. During the conversation, Massiah made several incriminating statements, and those statements were introduced at trial to be used against him. The government violated Massiah's Sixth Amendment rights. 4. Massiah appealed his conviction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the statements made by the defendant outside the presence of his attorney must be suppressed. 5.This made an impact on our country in which we don't have to worry about the government listening in on our conversations without our lawyer.

//1.Matthew Lavigna is doing 2.Davis vs. federal election October 7, 2006// 3.Davis had argued in the district court that the law which essentially raises the contribution cap for those running against self-financed candidates on its face violated both the first Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection claus. 4.Case still in progress 5.,m

Vasil is doing Taylor v. Louisiana 1975 1.Vasil Mico 2. Taylor v. Louisiana 1975 3.The amendment was challenged because Taylor claimed the state of Louisiana violated his right by an impartial jury by the sixth and fourteenth amendment. 4.Taylor won the case.The Decision was that there was no women registered as a jury member and that violated a rule. 5.The decision means that you must be fairly trialled by a variety of people. The impact this has on our country is that you have your right to have a impartial jury and It opened up the way for women across the nation to be as equal with men as jurors.

1. Ali Surdoval 2. Escobedo v. Illinois 1964 3. Danny Escobedo was arrested and then taken to the police station for questioning. The police refused to let him see his lawyer and soon he confessed to murder. Escobedo felt that his right to remain silent and to counsel was denied. 4. The court agreed with Escobedo. He had not been informed of his right to remain silent and had admitted to a crime. The police couldn't have questioned him first. 5. The impact on our country was that now police have to be careful to inform the accused of their rights.

CHRISTIAN RUIZ IS DOIN Miranda v Arizona MINE!!!!!!!! Maryland v. Craig<- kayla is doing 1. Kayla Weinstein 2. Maryland v. Craig June 1990 3. A child was sexually abused and was unable to go to trial because of injuries caused by the offeneder. Maryland was accusing the prosecuted of not allowing the child to a speedy trial; via the 6th amendment. 4. The outturn of this case was that the child was able to be at the trial through a live television screen so by doing so, the 6th amendment rights of the defentant were not violated. This prosecuted was not charged with any criminal intent of trying to postpone a trial for the child. 5. The decision of the case afffected the United States by clearing up the meaning of the 6th amendment and made sure for future cases that no one should be presing charges without full evidence.


 * 1) Lauren Fabiano
 * 2) Apodaca v. Oregon 1972
 * 3) Petitioners, who were found guilty of committing crime, which are permitted under Oregon law.
 * 4) The case has the due process requirement and a jury be drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.
 * 5) This decision meant that Oregon 's "ten of twelve" rule is not violative of due process. So that also goes for the other people that live in Oregon.

_
 * 1) Hiba Rahman
 * 2) Kimbrough vs. United States (1986)
 * 3) The amendment was challenged because Kimbrough was arrested and charged with conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute it. Prosecutors said that Kimbrough had been found with 56 grams of crack cocaine and 921 grams of cocaine powder. Kimbrough pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, possession, distribution and having a gun during a drug crime.
 * 4) The end result was that Kimbrough was found guilty because he pleaded guilty.
 * 5) The Supreme Court's desicion affected the United States because now the citizens know what kinds of drugs are illegal here and the punishments you will recieve for having possesion of them.

Elizabeth Frye - Barker vs Wingo 1972

1. Niko Salvatoriello > 2. United States v. Nixon (1974) > 3. A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants to seek audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon stated that he was immune from the writ requiring his presence in court, claiming "executive privelege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? > 4. 8-0 vote that the president must produce the tapes and documents > 5. It means that there is no presidential privilige. The impact it had on our country is that no president can take advantage of being the president. > > 1. Tommy Cerene > 2. OHIO v. ROBERTS. (1980) > 3.Herschel Roberts was charged with forgery of a check and with possession of stolen credit cards. At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel called the victims' daughter to the stand and tried to elicit from her an admission that she provided defendant with the checks and the credit card but failed to inform the defendant that she did not have permission to use them. > 4. 6-3 vote that Herschel Roberts was guilty. > 5. This decision ment that Herschel was guilty of forgery and possession of stolen credit cards. > 1.Tommy Keller > 2.U.S. v. Nixon (1974) > 3.The amendment was challenged because the 6th amendment explicitly confers upon every defendent in a criminal trial and Nixon tried to cover up evidence to a crime that was comitted by a group of men heavily armed. > 4.The decision was that Nixon had to give up all tapes and evidence to the crime. The presidential power is not above the law and can't cover up evidence that could be used for a criminal trial. > 5.The decision meant that even the president can't go against the laws. No man is above the law. The impact was that Nixon gave up his pesidency. > > 1. Kristin Stetzel 2. Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 3. Gideon was charged for breaking and entering in a Florida state court. He didn't have the money to hire a lawyer so he asked the court to appoint him one.The court refused to give him one and they said that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. 4. The court decided that Gideon's 6th amendment right to Due process was ignored and they reversed the lower courts' decision. 5. It affected the court system because the case realized that people couldn't have a fair trial if they didn't have an attorney and that every citizen has the right to have an attorney when they were in court. > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > 1. Sam Bird > 2. Duncan v. Louisiana- 1968 > 3. Dunkan was convicted on a misdemeanor battery. He was sentenced to sixty days in jail. Also, he got a $150 fine. It was not a jury trial but, instead the uniteral decisionof a municipal judge. The state (Louisiana) allowed crimes with penalties without the potential of a severe punishment. > 4. Duncan appealed the Supreme Court, stating that he has denied his 6th amendment right (trial by jury). The court was not a petty offense and did require a jury trial. > 5. The decision incorporated the judicial procedural rights (Bill of Rights) into the " Anglo-American regime of the ordered liberty". > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > 1. Tori Gonzalez > 2. __Argersinger v. Hamlin__ Argued 2/28/1972-- Decided 06/12/1972 > 3. Jon Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon which is a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. Argersinger was sentenced to 90 days in jail but was not represented by an attorney during the trial. Does the 6th amendment guarantee right to counsel to defendants who are accused of misdemeanors? > 4. The court ruled all indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes and misdemeanor charges who face the possibility of jail time have the right to be represented by council or they may fall victim to 'assembly line justice" > 5. No matter how petty or small the charge if a person is facing jail time they have the right to a fair trial including representation.**