NCJ Number
117101
Journal
University of San Francisco Law Review Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1986) Pages: 313-337
Date Published
1986
Length
25 pages
Annotation
The influence of State law on Sixth Amendment rights is analyzed and Federal legislation to control the inadvertent influence of State law on constitutional rights of defendants charged with State crimes in Federal courts is proposed.
Abstract
Under existing law, if a State prescribes a penalty of less than $500 or 6 months imprisonment, the offense is petty and the accused does not have the right to counsel or jury trial. Conversely, if the State prescribes a more severe punishment, the offense is nonpetty and the accused is entitled to counsel and a jury trial. Because the right to counsel and trial by jury depend on the severity of penalty authorized by State law, Federal defendants prosecuted for similar crimes in different States may not be afforded equivalent Sixth Amendment protection. A discussion on the application of Magistrates Rules to crimes prosecuted under the Assimilative Crimes Act indicates that these rules produce procedural inequities among various Federal courts where the penalty for a particular crime is provided by reference to State law. Specifically, under the Magistrates Rules, defendants charged with State Crimes and prosecuted in Federal courts under the Assimilative Crimes Act may be entitled to counsel and jury trial. This right, however, is afforded only where the penalty provision for the crime exceeds the Federal petty offense standard. It is recommended that Congress amend the Magistrates Rules so that the right to counsel does not depend on the penalty for an offense but rather on a standard that can be applied uniformly throughout the Federal judiciary. 151 references.