III. Application of the Right

• Library: The Rights of the Accused under the Sixth Amendment (ABA) (2016 Ed.)

III. Application of the Right

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the jury trial in criminal cases is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice."³⁶ It is designed to protect against oppression by the government, specifically that of the "corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and . . . the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge."³⁷ Historically, a key question was whether this fundamental right would be extended beyond the standard criminal trial setting.

A. Contempt Actions

The clear rule in contempt actions for over half a century has been that the right to a jury trial applies if the punishment exceeds six months' imprisonment.³⁸ Sentences—even for contempt—"exceeding six months may not be imposed by federal courts absent a jury trial or waiver thereof."³⁹ As in the criminal setting, though, the justices have never been willing to apply the jury right to contempt proceedings involving petty matters.⁴⁰

B. Juvenile Proceedings

Juvenile court delinquency proceedings do not implicate the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision, as no "criminal prosecution" exists.⁴¹ While the right to counsel applies in the juvenile setting,⁴² the justices were unwilling to transform the basic process historically used with underage offenders.⁴³

C. Deportation Matters

Deportation proceedings, like juvenile delinquency matters, are not considered criminal trials within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, as deportation is not viewed as punishment for a crime.⁴⁴ The deportation matter can certainly be exceedingly significant,⁴⁵ yet a jury trial is not mandated.

D. Sentencing

The Sixth Amendment does not require that jurors determine the sentence to be imposed in a criminal jury trial.⁴⁶ This statement, while surely correct, raises two important issues.

1. Direct Involvement in Some States

Although under the Sixth Amendment the jury need not determine the sentence, states can choose to delegate this responsibility to the jury nonetheless. Accordingly, a few states involve juries in the basic sentencing decision.⁴⁷

2. The Changing Mandate: Required Jury Fact Finding

The more difficult issue has arisen in situations in which a fact must be found in order to increase the maximum allowable penalty under a specific sentencing statute. The key case here is Apprendi v. New Jersey,⁴⁸ which involved a state hate-crime statute prohibiting possession of certain restricted weapons. The state law allowed a judge to increase the sentence beyond the maximum established in the sentencing guidelines if she found that the defendant's purpose in possessing the prohibited weapon was to intimidate on the basis of particular characteristics of the victim.⁴⁹ The Supreme Court focused not on the form of the rule (part of the sentencing guidelines) but on its effect, which was of a "clear 'elemental' nature."⁵⁰ As the rule required a determination of the defendant's "degree of criminal culpability," the judicially imposed enhanced sentence deprived the defendant of his right to have the jury determine a major fact.⁵¹ The Apprendi Court's focus on effects meant that if the prosecutor must prove certain facts that increase the maximum allowable penalty and are essentially elements of the crime, a jury (not a judge) must decide whether facts that serve as predicates to sentencing decisions have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.⁵²

The post-Apprendi litigation has become increasingly complex, with a number of decisions seeking to clarify the effects-based doctrine. According to the Supreme Court, judges can decide facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence and do not go to an element of the crime.⁵³ The justices also held...