More on the Sixth

Patient, you are, to listen to me hollering about how we need a little fix-up in our court system, to bring about the "speedy and public" trials promised us in the Sixth Amendment. To hear me talk about it, it is almost as if we never did get around to practicing the Sixth, and we need to institute it for the very first time.

Today, I tell you two things. One, this will work sometimes, but there are times a speedy trial truly isn't practical. I say, it works wonderfully in John Swallow-type cases, where a lot of evidence exists right from the start. And, there is a clear suspect.

But, some cases do take long-and-drawn-out investigations, in order to assemble enough evidence to convict. In such cases, it might well be impractical to hold a trial too quickly.

The second thing to tell you is, yes, you're right: There is also the Fifth Amendment, and it has its own say on how court proceedings are to be conducted, and it says a person cannot be subjected to the same offence twice. 

I like it that the initial hearing should bring all the facts known at the moment, and all the witnesses known, and bring them together to declare whether enough evidence either does exist or is expected to come forth. If it is determined the evidence likely to come forth already is available, then the case proceeds on the spot.

And, if there is an acquittal, yes, that ends the case. As for appeals by the defendant, they too should be limited. Not sure where to drawn the line, but the Fifth Amendment does, in part, work with the Sixth, in that it does not call for appeals. Some have suggested that if it is not fair to let acquittals be appealed, then perhaps to be fair to both sides, convictions should also be final. I am not ready to toss out our appeals process, but I do consider that we should rein it in.