Constitution

The Sixth Amendment: Rights of the Accused

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury, notice of the charges, confrontation of witnesses, and the assistance of counsel.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

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 his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In plain English

The Sixth Amendment lists the protections owed to anyone accused of a crime.

  • Speedy and public trial. Justice delayed is justice denied, and trials in the open guard against secret proceedings.
  • Impartial jury. Jurors come from the state and district where the crime occurred, a district "previously ascertained by law."
  • Notice. The accused must be told the "nature and cause of the accusation."
  • Confrontation. The accused may face the witnesses against him. This is the basis of the rule against most hearsay in criminal trials.
  • Compulsory process. The accused may compel witnesses to appear in his favor.
  • Assistance of Counsel. The accused has the right to a lawyer for his defense. At the Founding this meant the right to hire one; the Court later extended it to appointed counsel.

The Amendment applies only to "criminal prosecutions." Civil cases are covered by the Seventh.

What the Founders said

Hamilton's Federalist No. 83 defended the original Constitution's silence on civil juries, while No. 84 argued that Article III already protected criminal trial by jury. The Anti-Federalists were not persuaded, and several state conventions asked for stronger guarantees.

The Sixth Amendment draws on the abuses of colonial vice-admiralty courts, which tried smuggling cases without juries, and on the Declaration's complaint that the king had deprived the colonists "in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury" and transported them "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences."

The right to counsel was a break with English practice. In the mother country, defendants in felony trials were generally not allowed counsel to argue their case. American practice, in the states, allowed counsel earlier, and the Amendment confirmed it.

How the courts have read it

  • Powell v. Alabama (1932): in a capital case, a state must provide counsel to an indigent defendant.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): states must provide counsel to indigent defendants in felony cases.
  • Duncan v. Louisiana (1968): the right to a jury trial in serious criminal cases applies to the states.
  • Barker v. Wingo (1972): a four-factor test for whether the right to a speedy trial was violated.
  • Crawford v. Washington (2004): testimonial hearsay is admissible against a defendant only if the witness is unavailable and the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine; the decision drew on the original meaning of "confronted."
  • Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004): facts that raise a sentence above the statutory maximum must be found by a jury.
  • Ramos v. Louisiana (2020): the jury must be unanimous to convict in a serious case, in state as well as federal courts.

Why it matters now

The Sixth Amendment protects the person on the weak end of the criminal process. A conservative view of law enforcement values order and public safety, and it values the rules that keep the government honest, too. The two go together: convictions that follow fair procedures are more credible, and a society that guarantees them is freer.

Several recent decisions show the originalist method at work. Crawford and Ramos both asked what the words meant when the Amendment was adopted, and both reached results that favored defendants and gave textual guidance to lower courts. Apprendi and Blakely did the same for the jury's role in sentencing.

The Amendment also speaks to practical problems: delay in courts, underfunded defense counsel and crowded dockets. The right to a speedy trial and to competent counsel is only as good as the system that carries it out, and that system is mainly run by states and counties.

Latest on this topic