Amendment VI

Debates in Congress

• quoted bySuggested
  House, August 17, 1789, ¶ 65

  …'* In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the oatum and cause of the arrusa* «: tion, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

  The paragraph gives the words of the committee's proposal, and its words from "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" to "counsel for his defence" appear in the Sixth Amendment, as do its opening words "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."

• quoted bySuggested
  House, June 8, 1789, ¶ 37

  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining…

  The paragraph gives the words of Mr. Madison's proposals, and its words "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" appear in the Sixth Amendment.

• quoted bySuggested
  House, September 24, 1789, ¶ 3

  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial; by an impartial jury, of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of* the nature and cause of the accusation— to be confronted with the witnesses against him — to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in…

  The paragraph gives the words of a proposal under debate; the words quoted appear unchanged in the Sixth Amendment.

• cited bySuggested
  Senate, May 23, 1866, ¶ 20

  …the right to be exempt from unreasonable seai ches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

  Among the rights it says are "secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution," the paragraph names the accused's right to be informed of the nature of the accusation and to be tried by an impartial jury.

The Supreme Court

Cases whose essays in the Constitution Annotated cite them under this clause, oldest first. Each link names the pages it comes from.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Reynolds v. United States (1879)98 U.S. 145, decided January 18, 1879

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.1, Amdt6.4.5.4, Amdt6.5.1, pp. 1805, 1853, 1859.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Powell v. Alabama (1932)287 U.S. 45, decided November 7, 1932

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.6.3.2, Amdt6.6.5, Amdt6.6.5.1, Amdt6.6.5.2, pp. 1879, 1890.

• interpreted bySuggested
  In re Oliver (1948)333 U.S. 257, decided March 8, 1948

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 6 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.3, Amdt6.3.1, Amdt6.3.2, Amdt6.3.3, Amdt6.3.4, Amdt6.5.2, Amdt6.5.4, pp. 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1861, 1871.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)378 U.S. 478, decided June 22, 1964

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.6.3.3, Amdt6.6.3.4, Amdt6.6.3.5, pp. 1881, 1886.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Miranda v. Arizona (1966)384 U.S. 436, decided June 13, 1966

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 3 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.6.3.3, pp. 1881, 1882, 1883.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)391 U.S. 145, decided May 20, 1968

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 7 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.3.4, Amdt6.4, Amdt6.4.1, Amdt6.4.2, Amdt6.4.3, Amdt6.4.3.1, Amdt6.4.3.2, Amdt6.4.3.3, Amdt6.4.4.4, Amdt6.4.5.1, pp. 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1829, 1845, 1847.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Barker v. Wingo (1972)407 U.S. 514, decided June 22, 1972

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 7 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.2.2, Amdt6.2.5, Amdt6.2.6, Amdt6.2.7, Amdt6.2.8, Amdt6.2.9, pp. 1807, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Strickland v. Washington (1984)466 U.S. 668, decided May 14, 1984

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.6.5, Amdt6.6.5.1, Amdt6.6.5.2, Amdt6.6.5.5, Amdt6.6.5.6, pp. 1890, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Wheat v. United States (1988)486 U.S. 153, decided May 23, 1988

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.6.2, Amdt6.6.2.1, Amdt6.6.3, Amdt6.6.3.1, Amdt6.6.3.6, Amdt6.6.4, Amdt6.6.5.3, Amdt6.6.5.4, pp. 1873, 1878, 1887, 1888, 1892.

• interpreted bySuggestedOverruled
  Walton v. Arizona (1990)497 U.S. 639, decided June 27, 1990

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.4.3.4, Amdt6.4.3.7, pp. 1833, 1839.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Ring v. Arizona (2002)536 U.S. 584, decided June 24, 2002

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 2 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.4.3.4, Amdt6.4.3.5, Amdt6.4.3.7, pp. 1834, 1839.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Crawford v. Washington (2004)541 U.S. 36, decided March 8, 2004

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 5 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.5.2, Amdt6.5.3, Amdt6.5.3.1, Amdt6.5.3.3, Amdt6.5.3.4, pp. 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1867.

• interpreted bySuggested
  Presley v. Georgia (2010)558 U.S. 209, decided January 19, 2010

  The Constitution Annotated's essays on this provision cite the case on 4 pages.

  Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt6.3, Amdt6.3.1, Amdt6.3.2, Amdt6.3.3, Amdt6.3.4, pp. 1819, 1821, 1822, 1823.