WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A JURY GETS IT WRONG? EXAMINING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

by Erin Moriarty, 2010 Jennings Fellow

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.”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution “… a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants,''

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).

THE ADVENT OF "MATERNITY TOURISM":

OFFICIALS CLOSE A CALIFORNIA HOME THAT BIRTHED "AMERICAN CITIZENS" TO ASIAN WOMEN VISITING THE US; AN ISOLATED INSTANCE OR A NEW TREND?

Today's New York Times features a story about a makeshift maternity home in San Gabriel, CA, twenty miles from Los Angeles. For fees ranging into thousands of dollars, the home offered well-to-do women from China the opportunity to give birth to their children in the United States. By being born here, the children are automatically American citizens under the "birthright citizenship" clause of the 14th amendment. The Times article described other businesses advertising similar services to women in China, Mexico, and Korea.

The birthright citizenship issue, which was the focus of a program mounted by PJP at its 2011 main event, has been at the heart of the debate over illegal immigration, usually from Latin American countries. But this is different, Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, tells the Times. "If anything, it is worse than illegal immigrants having a baby here. Those kids are socialized as Americans. This phenomenon of coming to the U.S. and then leaving with people who have unlimited access to come back is just ridiculous."

FINALLY, REASON PREVAILS: MY STATE REJECTS FIVE IMMIGRATION BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANYWAY

By Andrew Hedlund, 2011 Collegiate Fellow

Thankfully, the Arizona state Senate rejected five major immigration bills this week. This was a victory for Constitution-lovers everywhere because several provisions of these bills stood in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution and with precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions.

Senate Bills 1308 and 1309 would have re-interpreted the birthright citizenship guarantee of the 14th amendment. The amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." It is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment that is claimed to be open to interpretation. Those who maintain that the amendment is being read too broadly believe that it should not apply to the children of those who are here illegally because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. But I go with those who argue that the reason this wording was included in the amendment was simply to exclude the children of diplomats and ambassadors.