The 6th Amendment contains the right to counsel and the right to confront witnesses. These two rights are necessary to test the government’s evidence, and help ensure the government has brought proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In most adversarial legal systems beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard to obtain a conviction. The United States Supreme Court stated In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt..." But many people including myself believe the government cannot be said to have established proof beyond a reasonable doubt without having their evidence tested by counsel. The Supreme Court made this clear in Gideon v. Wainwright.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crimes, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."
- United States Supreme Court,
Justice Hugo Black Writing for the Majority
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
A lay person is not trained in the law, the rules of evidence, nor do they have experience trying cases. Lay people frequently have difficulty asking simple questions, making an opening statement, or giving a closing argument in court. It is rare that a pro se defendant can put forth a competent defense in their case. This is why counsel is necessary test the government's evidence. Unless counsel is there to challenge the strength of government's evidence it cannot be ensured they have brought proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Interestingly in the 16th century the Catholic Church established a position that would become known as The Devil’s Advocate to argue against Sainthood. Apparently the Catholic Church thought having an advocate argue against the candidate for Sainthood was necessary to prove they deserve it.
In Gideon v. Wainwright the United States Supreme Court decided the 6th Amendment gives every Defendant the right to counsel, and mandated every defendant accused of a crime be given an attorney paid for by the government if they cannot afford one. This landmark decision immediately showed the importance of counsel in a criminal case. On retrial Gideon found not guilty with the help of counsel.
RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES
Defendants also need to be able to challenge the evidence against them. Attorneys would be of little use if the law did not give them the ability to challenge the evidence against their client. For this reason the 6th amendment also gives defendants the right to confront the witnesses against them (the Confrontation Clause).
The confrontation clause is necessary to ensure the accused has the right to cross-examine the witnesses, and not be convicted at trial by an affidavit. The right to cross-examine witnesses is by far the most compelling reason for the confrontation clause, and it was stated by Professor John Henry Wigmore that cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
CONCLUSION
The right to counsel and the right to confront witnesses in the 6th amendment is necessary to ensure the government has brought proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In my post regarding, THE BATTERY TRIAL OF C.L.: CROSS-EXAMINING WITNESSES ON THE VICTIM’S MOTIVE, I was able to cross-examine the government’s witnesses on the victim’s motive to make up these allegations and start a fight with my client. Only by having his 6th amendment right to counsel and the right to cross-examine the government’s witnesses was my client able to show he was not guilty of the charges he was accused of.
