JUST IN: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Case Concerning Sixth Amendment Rights
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2023
- On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Samia v. United States.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
100% horse puckey 😮
Is Justice Sotomayor wearing a mask? Good grief.
Look who's out of the basement.
@@divinerespect309 did you miss me?
My opinion Redacted documents prejudices court of law. All evidence must be presented fair trial for jury decision. Confrontation Claus 6th Ammendment requires criminal prosecution the accused shall have the rights confront witness.
If a precedent has been set as just and relied upon as being just for many years why try to change it?
I don't fully understand if they are trying to change being able to face your accuser or be accused blindly by anyone ??
Crooked judges in the past? E.g. Roe v Wade.
That's an incredibly silly position... or are you just trolling?
I'm already past finished replying to or writing comments today, so someone else'll need splain it to ya..
@@miehoen6212 roe vs wade overturned merely gave the abortion decision back to the States to decide for themselves like it should be .. way to much Federal overbearing regulatory control in State issues.. like education too .. these politcians in DC don't knkw whats best for your children wake up ..
I think the condition "set as just" isn't meaningful. The Supreme Court has made countless extremely unjust decisions (e.g., Dred Scott ("runaway slaves in free states need to be shipped back south"), Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal"), Korematsu v. US ("the government can put you in a concentration camp based on your ethnicity"), Shinn v. Ramirez ("innocence is not enough to get off death row"), Bush v. Gore ("don't count all the votes; just install W"), Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ("women don't own their bodies and don't get protection under the law equal to what men get"), D.C. v. Heller ("ignore the 'well regulated militia part of the 2A, just because"), etc) over the past ~235 years, but the deciding Justices wouldn't concede that their decisions were unjust. The only criteria to be a Supreme Court Justice is A) the candidate has to be nominated by a US President, and B) the candidate has to win a bare majority in the US Senate. To get nominated by a US President, a candidate must have powerful allies and not get knocked out of contention by powerful enemies, and as a result, the subset of people who get onto the Supreme Court are extremely biased towards powerful interests and individuals. Sometimes good and just people get onto the bench, but it's very hard to get a bench where the majority are good and just, and consequently, a lot of bad precedents get set and need weeding out.
Even eye witnesses shouldn't be allowed, they can lie, be. Bought, anything, only a officer of the law catching someone should be able to be used.
Samia is the court’s chance to round out the trilogy, addressing the third scenario: When a redacted confession includes a neutral reference (“other person”), but the jury can nevertheless discern from other evidence that the “other person” is the co-defendant.
1) I don't know what part of the 6th Amendment was violated.
2) I don't know how this lawyer's arguments are in favor of the 6th Amendment.
Is he defendant or prosecution?
I think that this lawyer has his own agenda. And isn't working one behalf of his client.
If a witness accuses someone of doing something, then they are a witness that must be scrutinized in the adversarial justice system because THAT'S THE ONLY WAY A TRIAL CAN BE FAIR. That's the due process clause as well.
The benefit of admitting these confessions must outweigh the benefit of the constitutional protections. They simply do not. For obvious reasons.
YOUR reasoning is compelling and seems correct to me but I am not a professional legal person so please explain your reason for or the situation where you refer to benefits must outweigh....and clearly ....?
Thanks for your sharing.
@@Hands2HealNow Thanks for the reply. I'm happy to elaborate on my comment.
The two fundamental components of due process are: notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard/fair trial. This means that a person being adjudged by the Court must first be notified of any action against them, and then they must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard by an impartial fact-finder. These two requirements are meant to safeguard citizens from arbitrary government action, and to ensure that justice will be given the purest opportunity to very it right, so to speak.
Now, imagine a trial where all evidence against you was given by people that you had no opportunity to confront. Not only could these people say anything that they wanted about you but it would be entirely possible that you didn't even know these people. You would not be able to question these people and potentially expose their lies in open Court. Instead, the only way to try and impeach these people would be to waive your right to silence and tell your side of the story. Then it becomes your word against theirs. However, their word is presented as truth/evidence of you guilt by the government prosecutor. For a great deal of people, the word of the government actors is regarded as gospel. Therefore, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to impeach the testimony of a witness that they don't even have the opportunity to confront, to expose.
Such a trial could not possibly be fair because the evidence that is being presented to the jury is biased in favor of the prosecution by virtue of the fact that the confrontation clause has been circumvented, and material witnesses are free from scrutiny.
It's not "In Care Concerning", it's "In Case Concerning".
There you go Forbes. Fixed it for you.
A person includes every person. Can another person be inferred to be someone other than the defendant?
What’s my name.. who am I! It’s me and they hide my name and connection! Celestori! Thanks for the truth.. Scantless! Run away statue! Injunction junction. Who is not taking part of this PIE? $$$
Isn't the whole enchilada preventing the confession of one defeendant being used to prejudice a case against another person? If so, that part of a confession that point to another in any way should not be placed in evidence.
Issue: Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.
You could be accused by anyone for anything ?? And not get to face or have a chance to cross examine them or question the accusation ??
@@priceisright1580 for this case it was his partner in crime that said something along the lines of " yea I killed him and I wasn't alone It was the other person that was in on it too" so they are debating if that confession should be brought into the "other persons" case
He didn't use the man's name
@@csweez9776 shouldn't the jury get to hear this accusation and see this person ??
Why is this amendment being argued?
There’s a question of the hour why is this amendment even being argued we’re not changing our amended laws we’re not changing the constitution you’re not going to do this the American people without a huge vote and a complete understanding of what you’re asking about because it’s we the people that you’re working for and we didn’t ask you to change anything in our constitution that would be extreme
Issue: Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.
I need help to file!!
Can you cross exam the confession if no then it violates the 6th
Joe Biden loves chocolate chip ice cream
And young children.
Maybe that's why he looks the way he does acne scares
I got some 'chocolate chip' he can eat. It came from my dog and it's in my front yard. 😁
@@surv2239: Scaby scars.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Is Justice Sotomayor wearing a mask? Good grief.