Criminal Trial Rights
Tanner Powell and Eric Tate
Incorporation
The first, fourth, fifth (except right to be indicted by
a grand jury), and sixth amendments to the
constitution are incorporated; protected from
infringement at the state and local level.
Timeline
1932-Powell v. Alabama- Right to counsel in capital cases
1965-Pointer v. Texas- Right to confront witnesses
1966-Miranda v. Arizona- defendants must be informed of their
rights
1966 – Parker V. Gladden – Right to an impartial jury
1967 – Washington V. Texas – Right to acquire witnesses
2006 – Georgia V. Randolph – all residents must consent to a
search.
Powell v. Alabama 1932
Premise: Nine black men (including Ozzie Powell) were accused of rape, given a one day trial, little
or no access to counsel, and a highly biased jury.
Rights: The defendants’ sixth amendment right to impartial jury and legal counsel were denied.
Outcome: The Court ruled that indigent members of society (in this case, the defendants), when
charged with a capital crime, must be given competent counsel at the expense of the public. This
ruling was incorporated against infringement by the states.
Pointer v. Texas 1965
Premise: Pointer was indicted for robbery. The witness who testified at the grand jury later moved to
another state. The transcript from the grand jury hearing was then used in the criminal trial as
evidence. This prevented Pointer from confronting or cross-examining the witness.
Rights: Pointer’s sixth amendment rights to confront and subsequently cross-examine the witnesses
against him were violated.
Outcome: The court ruled that witnesses are compelled to confront and testify on behalf of or against
the defendant. This ruling was incorporated against state infringement.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Premise: Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of robbery. Under police questioning Miranda
confessed (without legal supervision) to an earlier rape. He was convicted for this rape.
Rights: Because Miranda was not informed of his sixth amendment right to an attorney and fifth
amendment right against self-incrimination, these rights were effectively denied.
Outcome: Defendants are to be informed of their fifth and sixth amendment rights in order for their
statements to be admissible in court. This ruling was incorporated against infringement at the
state level.
http://www.5min.com/Video/What-are-MirandaRights-34095282
Public school does not recognize the right against self-incrimination.
Parker V. Gladden - 1966

At a Trial for a second-degree
murder case, the bailiff made
comments to jurors about the
accused. This Violated the 6th
amendment because the jury
was no longer impartial. The
court ruled in Parker's favor
saying that the bailiff has no
right to speak to the jury like
that.
This decision reinforced the 6th
amendment and also showed
that the 6th amendment applies
to state courts as well as
federal courts.
Washington V. Texas - 1967

In a case where two men
where charged with murder,
they were tried separately. In
Washington's trial, he wanted
to use his co-participant's
testimony in the trial.
Because of Texas laws, he
was not allowed to do this.
The Supreme Court ruled that
based on the 6th amendment,
Washington had the right to
obtain witnesses in his favor
no matter who they be.
This once again strengthened the
6th amendment and told Texas
that the federal amendments
apply to the states as well, so
they'd have to follow by those
rules.
Georgia v. Randolph- 2006

In this case a husband rejected to a police search that
his wife consented to. The cops found evidence of
drugs in the husband's room. The court ruled that
police do not have the right to search a residence
without a warrant unless all residents consent to the
search.