Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

So we're going to tax them, start out at 1%, see how they like it.

We're going to enforce the First Amendment, and we're going to enforce the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment on campus.

We're going to go after their anti-Semitism.

We're going to go after their 40% federal grant gouging.

Though we know that death-qualifying juries introduces these biases that we do not want.

And as a result, the process has been challenged under the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment.

So far, these challenges have been relatively unsuccessful.

Most notably, the Supreme Court in 1986, Lockhart v. McCree, ruled that a death-qualified jury's disproportionate likelihood to inflict the death penalty didn't constitute a deprivation of a representative jury, as guaranteed by the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Though we know that death-qualifying juries introduces these biases that we do not want.

And as a result, the process has been challenged under the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment.

So far, these challenges have been relatively unsuccessful.

Most notably, the Supreme Court in 1986, Lockhart v. McCree, ruled that a death-qualified jury's disproportionate likelihood to inflict the death penalty didn't constitute a deprivation of a representative jury, as guaranteed by the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

And as a whole, it's problematic if the government ever tries to do like what the government can do is say we're going to have notice to the court of a potential conflict because otherwise the government is trying to deliberately interfere.

with his constitutional right to choose his own counsel uh and that's a sixth amendment right and they love to play games with this and it wouldn't surprise me if this prosecutor has gone past that line but the that that's a limit and this isn't a conflict anyway normally this comes up when a lawyer is representing co-defendants in a case um but if they're married if there's other agreements arrangements usually that's not a problem they have to show a plausible ground for a conflict of interest legal interest between the two.

And sometimes there can be a finger-pointing defense, things of that nature.

But even then, because of the Sixth Amendment right, they have to do this long soliloquy because there's aspects of it you can't waive, but most aspects you can.

But it's utterly frivolous, frankly, to suggest there's a conflict of interest because they're representing someone who is aligned with the interest of Brian Cole, not adverse to the interest of Brian Cole.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

While she excluded all the compelling impeachment evidence against the government's witnesses and even the chief judge in the center of the panel, the African-American woman, you know, said at the end, you know, isn't it kind of bad when it's like everything appears to have been one sided? Like literally every ruling against him was made and every ruling for him was denied.

that's because that's because he was really really really wrong robert i mean

Trial counsel did not retain a ballistics or forensic expert to demonstrate that there wasn't any physical evidence tying him to the murder weapon, nor did he call any witnesses to testify during the guilt phase of the trial.

So one could argue that he did not receive his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

And then when it came to the jury selection in his case, potential black jurors were systematically excluded from the jury pool, and this is something you see in a lot of cases.

In Kershon's case, all the potential black jurors were excluded without much meaningful opposition.

In Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado back in 2017, Kennedy writing, after a conviction, two jurors came forward saying that a third juror had made explicit statements showing racial animus toward the Hispanic defendant.

The court held that where a juror makes a clear statement indicating reliance on racial stereotypes or animus, the Sixth Amendment requires the no impeachment rule to give way.

Kennedy wrote that blatant racial prejudice is antithetical to the functioning of the jury system and must be confronted in especially egregious cases.

The threshold is overt racial bias.