Sixth Amendment

While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Associate Professor of Political Science, Queens University of Charlotte. Coauthor of Misreading the Bill of Rights.

Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.

Recent News

Sixth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that effectively established the procedures governing criminal courts. Based on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, the amendment balances societal and individual rights in its first clause by requiring a “speedy” trial. It also satisfies the democratic expectation of transparency and fairness in criminal law by requiring public trials consisting of impartial jurors. For the text of the Sixth Amendment, see below.

The public trial and jury requirements contained in the Sixth Amendment’s first clause are essential elements of due process. An integral part of the clause and the rights it seeks to protect is impartiality. Bias is expected to be reduced not only by placing decision making in the hands of jurors but also by screening out potentially prejudiced jurors. To this end, both the prosecution and the defense have the opportunity to participate in the jury-selection process.

Transparency and fairness in criminal law are also evident in the accusation and confrontation clauses of the amendment. Criminal suspects must be made aware of the crimes they are accused of committing, and this comes mostly in the form of an indictment, a precise and detailed list of charges for which the criminally accused will be tried. The confrontation clause reinforces the rights of the criminally accused further by requiring that they be confronted with the witnesses against them. In addition to providing defendants the opportunity to see their accusers, the clause serves the vital role of having the witnesses available for cross-examination. Moreover, defendants are entitled to witnesses in their defense. Any person knowledgeable of the facts of a case may be called as a witness for the defense.

The Sixth Amendment’s final clause entitles the criminally accused to legal counsel and applies equally to custodial interrogations and trials (see assigned counsel). In either environment, absent legal assistance the criminally accused may be intimidated or compelled to provide testimony against his will. Absent the specialized knowledge of the law and criminal procedure, the accused would not be able to mount an effective defense of his own liberty. Thus, without the right to legal counsel, the criminal justice system would be lopsided in favour of the government, and this right to counsel enables the playing field to be leveled.

The full text of the amendment is:

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.