It was not until 1963 that the U. S. Supreme Court declared that legal counsel must be provided at the expense of the state for indigent felony defendants, under the federal Sixth Amendment, in state courts.

Although the Sixth Amendment mandates the right to a jury trial in any criminal prosecution, the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by the plea-bargaining process.

" The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, " 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.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The concept of " Miranda rights " was enshrined in U. S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence.

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel, a component of the Miranda Rule, is different from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

In the context of the law of confessions the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is defined by the Massiah Doctrine.

Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.

The Massiah Doctrine prohibits the admission of a confession obtained in violation of the defendant ’ s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are to protect a defendant ’ s right to a fair trial and to assure that our adversarial system of justice functions properly by providing competent counsel as an advocate for the defendant in his contest against the “ prosecutorial forces ” of the state.

The Sixth Amendment right “ attaches ” once the government has committed itself to the prosecution of the case by the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings " by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment ,".

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense specific — the right only applies to post commencement attempts to obtain information relating to the crime charged.

As noted, information obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is subject to suppression unless the government can establish that the defendant waived his right to counsel.

A valid Miranda waiver operates as a wavier of Sixth Amendment right.

Miranda is based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Massiah is based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment ( the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case ).

On December 14, 2010, in United States v. Warshak, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails and that the government violated Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his internet service provider to turn over his emails without first obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause.

The Sixth Amendment ( Amendment VI ) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions.

Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to “ a trial by jury as understood and applied at common law, and includes all the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and England when the Constitution was adopted .” Therefore, it was held that juries had to be composed of twelve persons and that verdicts had to be unanimous, as was customary in England.

Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity.

The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.

Pursuant to the Jones Act of 1917, which granted Puerto Ricans American citizenship among other guarantees, Balzac sought jury trial under the Sixth Amendment.

Regarding depositions to preserve testimony, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional right of the defendant to be present during the deposition and to cross-examine the witness.

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296 ( 2004 ), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

The defendant was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the use of the transmitted testimony, because the Confrontation Clause guaranteed face-to-face confrontation.

Thus, procedurally, only a jury can convict a defendant of a serious crime, since the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been incorporated against the states ; substantively, for example, states must recognize the First Amendment prohibition against a state-established religion, regardless of whether state laws and constitutions offer such a prohibition.

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, because of the state law marital privilege, did not testify at the trial and so was unavailable.

In the U. S., every defendant in a criminal case has the right, under Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, to be tried by an impartial jury.

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant that their attorney's performance was so ineffective as deprive them of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney during a plea colloquy ; failure of the state to provide an attorney to an indigent defendant during such proceedings is grounds for an appeal.

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that, other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.

Booker appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit claiming the sentencing guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment rights as the judge was able to find facts, other than his criminal history, that determine the defendant ’ s sentencing range absent findings of the jury.

" If a particular fact — whether it was called an " element " or a " sentencing factor "— exposed the defendant to a greater punishment, then the Sixth Amendment required a jury to find it.

Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original United States Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the US Constitution extend the rights to trial by jury to include the right to jury trial for both criminal and civil matters and a grand jury for serious cases.

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required that all indigent criminal defendants receive publicly-funded counsel ( Florida law, consistent with then-existing Supreme Court precedent reflected in the case of Powell v. Alabama, required the assignment of free counsel to indigent defendants only in capital cases );

:: Example: The right to counsel plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counsel's skill and knowledge is necessary to accord defendants the “ ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution ” to which they are entitled.

:: Example: The Court has considered Sixth Amendment claims based on actual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether, as well as claims based on state interference with the ability of counsel to render effective assistance to the accused.

:: Example: The right to counsel plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counsel's skill and knowledge is necessary to accord defendants the “ ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution ” to which they are entitled.

The commission discovered during its investigation that indigent defendants in Greene County were routinely pled guilty by judges without the presence of counsel and sometimes without even being present in court to make their pleas, violations of the Sixth Amendment.

In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys, extending the identical requirement made on the federal government under the Sixth Amendment.

The Supreme Court had ruled in Powell v. Alabama,, the famous case of the Scottsboro Boys, that the Sixth Amendment's Assistance of Counsel Clause included a right to appointed counsel in certain capital cases, and that this right as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

He argued that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.