The Amendment's final part assures the accused person the right to aid of counsel. Legal representation was once a benefit only accessible to the rich. The poor were frequently left to their own devices in English courts. While defendants in America can decide to represent themselves, the right to counsel gives one the right to gratis legal help. In criminal trials, poor defendants are given legal counsel. Nationwide, community legal services, legal aid societies and other factions help the poor deal with civil issues. No matter how well the founding fathers' accomplished on their plan, our judicial system is not ideal. It is well-known that injustices and frustrations are daily legal incidences. Even so, the framers made enormous progress for daily citizens through the 6th Amendment to make sure American courts truly are the people's courts (Sanders, 2007).

The Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see in re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273-74 (1948), guarantees a criminal defendant a basic right to be undoubtedly informed of the temperament and cause of the charges against them. In order to figure out whether a defendant has received constitutionally sufficient notice, the court looks first to the knowledge (Sixth Amendment, 2011).

The Sixth Amendment also assures a criminal defendant the basic right to be obviously informed of the temperament and course of the charges in order to allow sufficient research of a defense. This can be seen in Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir. 1990). The notice stipulation of the Sixth Amendment is integrated within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and...

Raines, 662 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1991) (Sixth Amendment, 2011).
The U.S. Constitution standardizes the division of work between judge and jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees in all criminal trials, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. This can be seen in United States v. Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. 2310, 2320 (1995); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2080 (1993) and in re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). While the jury is the authority of the details, the judge is the authority of the law. The judge must be allowed to educate the jury on the law and to be adamant that the jury follow their instructions. This can be seen in Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. At 2315, citing Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 105-06 (1895). Nevertheless, the jury has a constitutional accountability to not simply figure out the facts, but to apply the law to those details and draw the decisive close of guilt or innocence (Sixth Amendment, 2011).