Note: This is an educational course, not legal advice.
The Sixth Amendment also promises "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" and the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." These rights shape every criminal trial, and several were applied to the states through incorporation. This topic follows the right to counsel.
| Right | Case | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Jury trial in state courts | Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) | incorporated for serious crimes |
| Which crimes are serious | Baldwin v. New York (1970) | any offense punishable by more than six months; petty offenses may be tried by a judge |
| Jury size | Williams v. Florida (1970) | six-person juries allowed in state cases |
| Unanimity | Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) | a unanimous verdict is required to convict of a serious offense in state court; overruled Apodaca (1972) |
| Jury selection | Batson v. Kentucky (1986) | a prosecutor may not strike jurors because of their race (and, later, sex: J.E.B. v. Alabama, 1994) |
| Confrontation | Crawford v. Washington (2004) | testimonial statements of a witness who does not testify are barred unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior chance to cross-examine |
Why it works
What is testimonial? Statements made mainly to establish past facts for a prosecution, such as formal police interrogations or forensic lab reports prepared for trial (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 2009). A 911 call made to get help in an ongoing emergency is not testimonial (Davis v. Washington, 2006). Batson created a three-step process: the defendant shows a prima facie case that a strike was based on race; the prosecutor gives a race-neutral reason; the judge decides whether the reason is a pretext. In Ramos the majority (Justice Gorsuch) relied on the historical meaning of "trial by jury"; the dissent stressed stare decisis and reliance on Apodaca by two states.
Key idea
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) incorporated the jury right for serious crimes (over six months, Baldwin); Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) requires unanimous state felony juries; Batson v. Kentucky (1986) bars race-based strikes; Crawford v. Washington (2004) requires cross-examination for testimonial statements.
Worked example: A petty offense
A defendant charged with a crime punishable by at most 90 days in jail asks for a jury. Must the state provide one?
- Under Baldwin, offenses punishable by six months or less are presumptively petty.
- 90 days is under six months.
Answer: No jury is constitutionally required.
Worked example: A lab report
At a drug trial, the prosecution offers a sworn lab certificate saying the substance is cocaine, without calling the analyst. Objection?
- The certificate was made to prove a fact at trial: testimonial.
- Melendez-Diaz (2009), applying Crawford, requires the analyst to be available for cross-examination.
Answer: The objection should be sustained under the Confrontation Clause.
Common mistake
Thinking the Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury in every criminal case. It applies to serious offenses; petty offenses (generally six months or less) may be tried without a jury.