The Sixth Amendment is part of the United States Bill of Rights and its clauses are related to criminal prosecutions. It states that every defendant has the right of speedy and public trial, impartial jury, to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to choose such in his favor and to have the aid of a layer in his defense. The right to an attorney’s assistance has been focused on two main issues throughout its development – the right to counsel and the right to an effective counsel.
When the Constitution was adopted, courts in Britain did not appoint lawyers to defendants charged with felonies, opposite to those who were accused of misdemeanors. This practice was not executed by the American colonies and most of the original thirteen states gave defendants in all cases the right to have layers. Never the less, the United States’ Supreme Court was faced through the years with cases involving criminals who cannot afford legal counsel. The question at hand was whether they should be granted the right to a lawyer at public expense, or whether the Sixth Amendment guaranteed that the government could not stop defendants from hiring one.
An important
…show more content…
When a defendant is sued for federal banking or healthcare laws the court is allowed to freeze assets if they have been gained as a result of the crime. In 2012 Sila Luis was charged with health care crimes. A petition for a pre-trial order which would prevent Luis from using her assets was filled. Luis objected claiming that criminal forfeiture of her money would prevent her from hiring a lawyer and is thus in violation of her Sixth Amendment rights. The case was reviewed during the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals for and the restraint of untainted assets which were needed to hire legal defense was proven to be in violation of the Sixth