Sixth Amendment:
A. Right to Jury Trial/Booker
B. Confrontation Clause
C. Speedy Trial
D. Right to Counsel/Self Representation
E. Indictment - Variance/Deplicity
F. Miscellaneous Sixth Amendment
Miscellaneous Sixth Amendment
Supreme Court Decisions
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Rompilla v. Beard, 04-5462 (6/20/05)
> Defendant was convicted of capital murder, and
prior to the sentencing hearing, the state notified the defense
attorney that it intended to read extensively from defendant’s
prior rape conviction file, and to utilize it as an aggravating factor
for the death penalty. In spite of the state’s notification, the
defense attorney neglected to review the prior file. Defendant was
sentenced to death, and appealed through the state court system.
Defendant then filed for federal habeas relief based upon defense
counsel’s ineffectiveness.
* Holding: Applying Strickland, the Supreme Court
found that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to review the
prior rape conviction file. Given the fact that the state had notified
the defense of its intent to use the file and the defense’s ready
access to the file, the Court held that defense counsel’s
performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard of
representation. Further, the Court ruled that defendant suffered
prejudice as a result because, had counsel reviewed the file, he would
have discovered significant mitigating evidence that was not otherwise
revealed by the defense investigation.
• Right to Public Trial
Presley v. Georgia, 09-5270 (1/19/10)
> Defendant was charged in state court with drug
trafficking and the trial court excluded the public from voir dire
based on the space available in the court room. Defendant objected to
the procedure and demonstrated for the record that sufficient room
could be had in court to accommodate the public (including
defendant’s uncle). The trial court denied defendant’s
request, the jury was empaneled, and defendant was convicted. Defendant
lost his state court appeal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: The Court held that the Sixth Amendment
right to public trial extends to the voir dire. The Court ruled that
the closing of a courtroom to the public should be a rare occasion and
that, prior to excluding the public, the party seeking the closure must
advance an overriding interest that may be prejudiced, the closure must
be no broader than necessary to protect the interest, and the trial
court must consider reasonable alternatives to the closure and make
adequate findings on the record. The Court held that the trial court
had not considered any reasonable alternatives to the closure of the
courtroom during voir dire and accordingly defendant’s conviction
was reversed.
Sixth Circuit
• CJA Funding for Defense InvestigationU.S. v. Jamieson, 02-3403 (10/28/05)
> Defendant was charged in an insurance fraud scheme and requested $500,000.00 under the C.J.A., 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, for defense investigation. The district court denied the request because defendant failed to provide a budget or breakdown for a utilization of the funds. The district court later approved $100,000.00 for the defense, and defendant hired three experts who testified at trial, and utilized the assistance of a retired FBI agent throughout trial. Further, defendant requested the purchase of “extraordinarily expensive software” to retrieve deleted files and file fragments that were seized by the government from his business computers. The district court denied this request, and defendant appealed.
* Holding: District courts must authorize services under the CJA where a defendant shows that (1) such services are necessary to mount a plausible defense, and (2) the defendant’s case would be prejudiced without such services. The court found that $100,000.00 allowed defendant to sufficiently investigate and prepare his defense. Further, the court found that the extra software requested was unnecessary where the government made no use of the deleted files in preparing its case, and where defendant did not show how such files were necessary to mount a plausible defense. Accordingly, the district court rulings were affirmed.
• Right to Present Witnesses/Defense
Ferensic v. Birkett, 06-2342 (9/4/07)
> Defendant was charged in state court with armed robbery and home invasion. At trial, the only testimonial evidence of defendant’s guilt came from the two elderly eyewitnesses/homeowners. Defendant proposed to offer the testimony of an expert on eyewitness identification, and an eyewitness who had seen the robber before he entered the home. The trial court excluded the defense expert because the defense failed to provide the expert’s report to the prosecution two months before trial, as required by the court’s pretrial order. Instead, defendant provided the report 11 days before trial (the same day the defense received the report). Further, the trial court excluded defendant’s eyewitness testimony because the witness was not present at the time set for the defense case-in-chief. Defendant was convicted and lost his state court appeal. Defendant filed a federal habeas petition, and claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses had been abridged. The district court granted the petition, and the state appealed.
* Holding: The exclusion of a defense witness by a trial court violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses only where the exclusion is “arbitrary” or “disproportionate to the purpose it is designed to serve.” In the case, the court held that the exclusion of defendant’s two witnesses was disproportionate to any legitimate interest. In regard to the expert, the reason for excluding the evidence was the failure to comply with the pretrial order and the potential prejudice to the state. The court held, however, that the state never even alleged that it would suffer prejudice by the belated notice. Regarding the eyewitness, the only reason for excluding the evidence was because the witness was late and it would delay the trial. The defense, however, only requested a 30 minute delay to obtain the witness’ presence. Under these circumstances, the court found that the exclusion of the witnesses was disproportionate to the interests being served. Further, the court found that exclusion of the two witnesses was not harmless error. Accordingly, the district court ruling granting the writ was affirmed.
• Right to Present Witnesses
U.S. v. Roach, 06-6266 (9/11/07)
> Defendant was a police officer charged with violating the civil rights of a Hispanic man. The defense identified a witness who would testify that defendant was at another location at the time of the offense. Shortly before trial, the prosecutor learned that the witness had a prior federal felony conviction and that the state had nonetheless issued him a gun license. The prosecutor sent a letter to the state agency notifying it of the witness’ prior conviction, and the state revoked defendant’s license. The government notified the witness that it would not prosecute him for possessing any firearm before revocation of the permit. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment based upon witness intimidation by the government, and submitted an affidavit from the witness which indicated that he feared prosecution if he testified. The district court denied the motion. Defendant proceeded to trial and the defense chose not to call the witness. Defendant was convicted and he appealed.
* Holding: The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to present witnesses at trial, and such right may be violated by actions of the government that wrongfully discourage a witness from testifying. In the case, although the court found the timing of the government’s actions in notifying the state authorities to be questionable, the court ultimately concluded that the witness’ failure to testify was not caused by government misconduct. The government told the witness that it would not prosecute him for his possession of the firearm prior to revocation of the permit, and the defense chose not to call the witness during trial. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.
• Right to Present a Defense
U.S. v. Vasilakos, 05-3166 (11/21/07)
> Defendant was charged with conspiracy and mail fraud for defrauding large sums of money from the company for which he worked. At trial, defendant offered hearsay testimony regarding goals and policies of the company in order to support his good faith defense. The district court excluded the hearsay statements. (See supra, III. Evidence). Defendant was convicted and argued on appeal that his right to present a defense under the Sixth Amendment was violated.
* Holding: In rare instances, exclusion of testimony pursuant to the evidence rules may violate a defendant’s right to present a defense. In order to find such a violation, the ruling must “implicate a sufficiently weighty interest of the defendant,” and “serve no legitimate purpose.” In the case, the court held that the hearsay rules are deeply rooted and well settled, that they advance numerous important interests, and that their application did not violate defendant’s right to present a defense. Thus, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Due Process - Right to Present Defense
U.S. v. Hunt, 06-6300 (4/11/08)
> Defendant was charged with health care fraud and at trial he attempted to present the testimony of two codefendants. Both codefendants pled the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. Defendant was convicted and argued on appeal that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by placing the witnesses in positions where they would assert their rights not to testify.
* Holding: The court found that the government was not the cause-in-fact for either of the codefendants’ refusal to testify. One codefendant did not testify because his sentencing was delayed until after defendant’s trial, but the delay was at the request of the codefendant, not the government. The second codefendant did not reach his agreement for pretrial diversion of his case until after defendant’s trial, but again that was not because of delay by the government. Thus, the court found no “prosecutorial actions aimed at discouraging defense witnesses from testifying.” Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Due Process - Right to Present Defense
Johnson v. Bell, 04-5377 (4/29/08)
> Defendant was charged with murder. Through investigation, defendant found a favorable witness to testify in his behalf. Prior to trial, the witness was arrested by police on an unrelated charge. While in custody, the witness was interviewed by police and the prosecutor in defendant’s case, and the witness chose to testify for the state against defendant. The witness received favorable treatment in relation to his new charge. Defendant was convicted at trial, lost his state court appeals, and filed a federal habeas petition claiming that the state’s actions denied his right, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, to present witnesses and a defense. The district court denied the petition and defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court found no violation of a clearly established federal law in the state’s actions. The witness’ arrest was for an unrelated charge and was lawful. The witness chose, of his own initiative, to testify for the state, and consulted with his attorney before he did so. Further, defendant was able to fully cross examine the witness about his earlier statements that exculpated defendant. Thus, the court found no improper state action which would have tended to coerce the witness, and defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Right to Public Trial
Johnson v. Sherry, 08-1322 (11/13/09)
> Defendant was charged with murder and related charges in state court. During the trial, the prosecutor requested that the court close the court room during the testimony of three key state witnesses because two witnesses had been killed during the case under “suspicious circumstances.” Defendant’s attorney agreed to the closure of the court room and the court excluded members of defendant’s family during the testimony. Defendant was convicted, lost his state court appeal, and filed a federal habeas petition. The district court denied the petition and defendant appealed.
* Holding: The denial of a public trial is a structural error for which prejudice is presumed. As such, a courtroom may only be closed over objection of a defendant where (1) the party seeking closure advances an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, (2) the closure is no broader than necessary to protect that interest, (3) the trial court considers reasonable alternatives to the closure, and (4) the court makes findings adequate to support the closure. In the case, the court found that there was clearly insufficient evidence in the record to support the closure, however, because defendant failed to object, he was required to show “cause and prejudice,” in order to prevail in a habeas petition. The court determined that defense counsel’s ineffectiveness may be sufficient cause for the failure, and remanded the case for a full evidentiary hearing on the matter.
• Right to Compulsory Process
U.S. v. Hardy, 08-5421 (11/20/09)
> Defendant was charged with bank fraud and tax evasion for stealing money from her employer. One week prior to trial, defendant provided her counsel with check stubs to support her defense that she was taking money from the company to repay a loan she made to the company. Defendant’s counsel issued a subpoena duces tecum to the company for originals of the checks, and the company responded on the day of trial that the records were either lost or destroyed. Thus, defendant’s counsel sought to introduce the check stubs, which had not been turned over to the government in advance. The district court excluded the check stubs under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and defendant was convicted. Defendant argued on appeal that her right to compulsory process had been violated.
* Holding: First, the court held that the district court’s ruling was proper under Rule 16. (See infra). Regarding the compulsory process issue, the court held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights must be weighed against “countervailing public interests” such as (1) the integrity of the adversarial process, (2) the interests of justice, and (3) potential prejudice to the truth-finding process. The court found that defendant’s counsel admitted at trial that the origin of the check stubs was unclear, which was why counsel sought to subpoena the records from the company. Thus, the interests of justice weighed in favor of excluding the evidence. Further, defendant and her counsel intentionally withheld the evidence from the government until the day of trial, and accordingly, the integrity of the judicial process weighed in favor of exclusion of the evidence. The actions of the defense left the court with the opinion that it had acted to try to gain a tactical advantage by withholding the evidence. Therefore, the court held that exclusion of the evidence was appropriate and affirmed defendant’s conviction.