The Sixth Amendment is an antidote to the abuses of the police state

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: December 14, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------


** Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Challenging Government Efforts to Undermine Sixth Amendment Rights
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to determine whether the government is circumventing critical constitutional safeguards ([link removed]) against being tried in an improper location and Double Jeopardy, which prohibits the government from prosecuting someone twice for the same crime.

In asking the Court to hear Smith v. United States ([link removed]) , The Rutherford Institute, Cato Institute and the National Association for Public Defense urged the court to rein in the government’s power to indiscriminately pick and choose the laws by which it will abide, especially as it relates to the rights of the accused in criminal cases.

“We now live in a society in which a person can be accused of any number of crimes without knowing exactly what he has done,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “The Sixth Amendment serves as an antidote to the abuses of the American police state: ensuring that when people are accused of a crime, they know what they’re being charged with and are given the opportunity to have a fair, speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, the right to a lawyer, and the chance to confront and question their accusers.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: DONATE BEFORE 12/31/22 ([link removed])

Smith v. United States is one of two cases ([link removed]) on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that raised concerns about the government diminishing a person’s rights under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in the second case, Khorrami v. Arizona ([link removed]) , leaving a lower court ruling in place that undermines the longstanding right to have a trial by an impartial jury of twelve fellow citizens. In his dissent ([link removed]) over the denial of Khorrami, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the
arguments advanced by The Rutherford Institute and the ACLU in their amicus brief ([link removed]) , and warned that allowing juries of less than twelve people for serious criminal charges “continues to undermine the integrity of the Nation’s judicial proceedings and deny the American people a liberty their predecessors long and justly considered inviolable.”

Smith v. United States involves the right to be tried in the district where an alleged crime was committed. Although Timothy Smith was convicted of theft of trade secrets for acts he committed while in Alabama involving computer servers located in the Middle District of Florida, Smith was charged and tried in the Northern District of Florida. Smith appealed, noting that he had been tried in the wrong district. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Smith’s conviction but held that he could be retried for the same offense in the proper district without implicating the Double Jeopardy clause.

In the sole amicus brief submitted in Smith ([link removed]) , attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, Cato Institute and the National Association for Public Defense argued that the government should not be permitted to try a defendant in a district other than where the alleged crime occurred. The legal coalition warned that if the government can simply re-prosecute defendants who were tried in the wrong district, then there is no sufficient consequence to deter the government from selecting an unfair location for trial, just as the British Crown removed colonial defendants overseas to England to be tried. Further, the government would be effectively allowed to circumvent protections against Double Jeopardy and perpetually retry an accused in one district after another.

Michael Li-Ming Wong, Robert K. Hur, Vladimir J. Semendyai, and Philip Hammersley of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP advanced the arguments in the Smith amicus brief, ([link removed]) which is available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-challenging-government-efforts-to-undermine-sixth-amendment-rights Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-challenging-government-efforts-to-undermine-sixth-amendment-rights)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM: 12/31 DEADLINE FOR 2022 DONATIONS ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2022 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])