Amend. 5.-Rights of Persons-Private Property. Tribunal to Determine Value of Property The compensation to be made may be ascertained by any appropriate tribunal capable of estimating the value of the property. And whether the tribunal shall be created directly by an act of Congress or one already established by the State shall be adopted for the occasion is a mere matter of legislative discretion. U. S. v. Jones, 109 U. S. 518. The estimate of the just compensation for property taken for the public use under the right of eminent domain is not required to be made by a jury, but may be intrusted by Congress to commissioners appointed by a court or by the Executive, or to an inquest consisting of more or fewer men than an ordinary jury. Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 593. Right of Ejectment on Failing to Make Compensation This provision was intended to be enforced by the judiciary, and the Federal courts may take jurisdiction of an action in ejectment by a citizen against officers of the Government to recover property of which he has been deprived by force and which has been converted to the use of the Government without lawful authority, without due process of law, and without compensation. U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 220. Error of the trial judge in admitting evidence or entering judgment after full hearing in ejectment action does not constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law. Jones v. Buffalo, etc., Coke Co., 245 U. S. 328. Amendment 6.'-CRIMINAL TRIALS. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Leading Cases In Ex parte Milligan (4 Wall. 122) the court said: The great minds of the country have differed on the correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitution; and Judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but until recently no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed, See p. 25 for ratification. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. but if ideas can be expressed in words, and language has any meaning, Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, as to the meaning of "impartial jury." In U. S. v. Cook (17 Wall. 174), the court held: Offenses created by statute, as well as offenses at common law, must be accurately and clearly described in an indictment, and if they can not be, in any case, without an allegation that the accused is not within an exception contained in the statutes defining the offense, it is clear that no indictment founded upon the statute can be a good one which does not contain such an allegation, as it is universally true that no indictment is sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege all the ingredients of which the offense is composed. Scope See also Kirby v. U. S., 174 U. S. 47, as to dying declarations. The prohibitions contained in the sixth amendment were designed to prevent interference with the rights of the States and their citizens, and are restrictive of the power of the Federal Government alone. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410. Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 653. In Case of Conflict with Article III, Section 2, Clause 32 If there be any conflict between this amendment and the third clause of section 2, Article III of the Constitution, the amendment must control "under the well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earlier one." Schick v. U. S., 195 U. S. 68. Limited to Trials in Federal Courts In General This amendment was intended to apply exclusively to the powers exercised by the Federal Government, whether by Congress or by the judiciary, and not as a limitation upon the powers of the States. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 35. See also Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U. S. 481. Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 447. West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 264. 1 See Rules of Construction, p. 37. See p. 483. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 606. Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 551. U. S. v. Dawson, 15 How. 487. Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall 324. Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 397. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 219. McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 158. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 324. Courts of the District of Columbia and Territories This amendment is applicable to trials in the courts of the Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 5. Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U. S. 199. Alaska The treaty with Russia concerning Alaska made the Constitution applicable to that Territory, and the provision of section 171 of the Code for Alaska adopted by Congress (31 Stat. 358), wherein, among other things, it was provided "that hereafter in trials for misdemeanors six persons shall constitute a legal jury," was held repugnant to this amendment. Rassmussen v. U. S., 197 U. S. 516. Porto Rico This amendment has no applicability to Porto Rico, the island not having been incorporated into the Union. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298. Consular Courts Statutes giving consuls criminal jurisdiction are not invalid for not preserving to the accused person the right to be tried by jury. In re Ross, 44 Fed. 185, affirmed in 140 U. S. 459. In All Criminal Prosecutions This amendment "relates to the prosecution of an accused person which is technically criminal in its nature." U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 481. An action to recover a penalty under an act of Congress is not a criminal prosecution. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320. Hepner v. U. S., 213 U. S. 103. But when the statute declares the conduct denounced to be a misdemeanor the action for the penalty may be prosecuted either by indictment or by civil action. U. S. v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 199. The framers of the Constitution doubtless meant to limit the right of trial by jury in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 123. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. A person who violates an injunction is not entitled, under the Constitution, to a trial by jury. A court enforcing obedience for contempt is not executing the criminal laws but only securing to suitors the rights which it has adjudged them entitled to. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 594. Gompers v. U. S., 233 U. S. 604. Myers v. U. S., 264 U. S. 95. An action to recover a penalty for an alleged violation of the alien immigration act is a civil action and not governed by the criminal provisions of the Constitution. It is of no moment that the statute denominates the offense a misdemeanor, as that merely declares the Government's alternative right to prosecute as for a crime. U. S. v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37. See also Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, and Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 289, as to deportation of aliens. In Wong Wing v. U. S. (163 U. S. 228) the act of Congress of May 5, 1892, providing for deportation of aliens illegally within the United States, was held repugnant to this amendment in that it did not specifically provide for a judicial trial. Jury Trial The jury referred to is a jury constituted, as it was at common law, of 12 men, but this requirement applies to prosecutions in the Federal courts alone; it does not guarantee trials by jury in the State courts, and so does not preclude a trial without a jury in a State court, or a trial with a jury of less than 12 men. Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 349. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200. If this clause has any application to the order of trials of different indictments it must relate to the time of trial and not to the place and does not prevent the removal of a defendant to another district for trial when another indictment has been found against him. Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 86. A person called as a juror testified that he believed that he had formed an opinion but had not expressed it; that the opinion was based upon evidence not produced in court, and that the opinion would not influence his verdict. Upon a challenge by the defendant, for cause, the court overruled the challenge and permitted him to be sworn as a juror. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 146. Right to jury trial was not denied because after demurrer to indictment had been overruled the jury was dismissed and accused required to plead, and same jury was sworn and trial proceeded. Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U. S. 199. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. Socialists held denied no constitutional or statutory rights because trial jury was composed exclusively of members of other parties and of property owners. Ruthenberg v. U. S., 245 U. S. 480. This provision "distinctly means a criminal prosecution against a person who is accused and who is to be tried by a petit jury." A criminal prosecution under this amendment is much narrower than a "criminal case " under the Fifth Amendment. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 563. District Wherein the Crime Shall Have Been Committed Under the sixth amendment an accused can not be tried in one district under an indictment showing that the offense was committed in another district. Nor is there any authority for a removal to a district other than that in which the trial may constitutionally be had. Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224. The locality in which an offense is charged to have been committed determines the place and court of trial. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 83. On an indictment of a United States Senator for receiving or agreeing to receive compensation for services to be rendered in a proceeding before a department, in which it appeared that the tentative arrangement for services was made in Illinois subject to confirmation at St. Louis, Mo., and there subsequently confirmed, it was held that the defendant was properly tried at St. Louis. Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 344. In a prosecution for conspiracy, the place of trial can be any State and district where an overt act was performed. Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392. Referring to Revised Statutes, section 1014, the court said: The section makes no discrimination based upon distance, and requires the commitment to be made for trial before the court having cognizance of the offense, wherever that court may sit. Where the statute contains no exception, the courts can not create one. Indeed, the Constitution itself requires that the trial of all crimes shall be held in the State where the crimes have been committed, and the power of Congress to order the surrender of accused persons from other States is a necessary complement of the duty of trying offenses in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 78. A person charged with crime in a district other than that of his residence can not insist upon a right to be tried in the district of his residence, and has neither the legal nor constitutional right to object to removal to the district where the trial is to be had. Haas v Henkel, 216 U. S. 462. |