Sixth Amendment Flashcards
What rights does the 6th Amendment give?
Right to
-> jury
-> public trial
-> confront witnesses against him
-> cross-examine witnesses
-> be present at his own trial
-> assistance of counsel for his defense
What kinds of proceedings does a D have a right to counsel?
Any case in which actual/suspended incarceration is imposed.
When does the right to counsel apply?
At which proceedings does it not apply to?
Automatically applies at all critical stages of prosecution after formal proceedings begin
AND
Right automatically attaches when formal juridical proceedings have begun (e.g. post-arrest initial appearance before a judicial officer, formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment)
No right to counsel as post-conviction proceedings (e.g. parole and probation).
Can a party waive their right to counsel? If so, how?
Must be
-> voluntary
-> knowing
and
-> intelligent
Receiving a Miranda warning sufficiently apprises a person of his 6th Amendment right and the consequences of waiving those rights (even though Miranda rights arise from the 5th amendment)
How does subsequent wavier vary if the accused has or has not asserted his right to counsel?
Does it change if in a non-custodial setting?
If an accused has not actually asserted his right to counsel
-> there is no presumption that any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel will be involuntary
If an accused actually asserts the right to counsel
-> then subsequent waivers are presumed involuntary
BUT
-> only in a custodial setting (setting where accused is in custody of police)
Even after 6th Amendment rights attach, police may initiate non-custodial interactions with the accused outside the presence of his lawyer,
AND
-> there will be no presumption that any knowing waiver of the right to have counsel present for the interaction is involuntary.
What is the right to proceed pro se?
D can refuse counsel and proceed pro se at trial.
Court should warn D of dangers and disadvantages, and may appoint a “standby counsel.”
If a D is competent to stand trial, does that mean they’re competent to represent themself?
D may be competent to stand trial yet incompetent to represent himself.
Does the police have to tell the D that his lawyer has been trying to reach him?
No, unless the 6th amendment has attached.
What is the Blockburger test?
Once the 6th Amendment right to counsel is properly invoked, it applies only to the specific offense at issue in those proceedings
OR
-> the right also encompasses offenses that—even if not formally charged—would be considered the same offense as a charged offense.
Blockburger test
-> Two crimes committed in one criminal transaction are deemed to be the same offense for the 6th Amendment purposes UNLESS each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not have.
How does the 6th Amendment differ compared to the Miranda rights with regard to when the counsel must be present.
Unlike under the Miranda standard, under the 6th Amendment standard, the requirement for counsel to be present applies only to interrogations about the offense charged.
In both situations the D may make knowing/voluntary waiver of the right.
What remedies does D get if he is denied his right to counsel? More specifically, what is the impact
-> on the conviction?
-> on the guilty plea?
-> on non-trial proceedings?
-> on defendant’s statements to informants?
Effect on conviction
-> D’s conviction is automatically reversed even without specific showing of unfairness
Effect on guilty plea
-> D has right to withdraw it and it can’t be used against him as an admission
Non-trial proceeding
-> look at whether it was a harmless error or not
Defendant’s statements to informants
-> Post-indictment statement to information where police create a situation that is likely to induce D to incriminate himself without counsel is admissible
BUT
-> police may place an informant in D’s cell to listen without questioning D
How does the exclusionary rule apply to remedies for denial of counsel?
-> Fruit of the poisonous tree
-> impeachment
Fruit of the poisonous tree
-> the doctrine applies to statements and physical evidence obtained as result of violation; such evidence will be inadmissible
Impeachment
-> incriminating. evidence obtained in violation of 6th Amendment may be used for impeachment
Is D’s counsel presumed to be competent?
Yes they are.
What must the claimant show to prove ineffective assistance of counsel?
Claimant mustshow
-> counsel’s representation fell below objective standard of reasonableness
AND
-> counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced D, resulting In the reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different
What actions of the lawyer are insufficient to claim ineffective assistance of counsel?
Following are insufficient to claim ineffective assistance
-> mere inexpensive, strategy, or failure to produce mitigating evidence insufficient
