Please help! Read through the following examples and determine whether the requirements of a speedy and public trial have been met, whether the right to a jury may have been violated, whether the right to confront your accuser may have been violated and whether the right to counsel has been appropriately honored. Please be sure to cite evidence to support your answer, e.g., specific court cases. 1) The trial of the famous former child actor Jeremy Janson has begun for alleged criminal tax evasion. The media is intensely interested in the case, and local television stations have requested the presiding judge to permit television cameras into the courtroom. Mr. Jason's attorney, Ms. Kenderson, notes that while she understands that her client has a right to a public trial; that right should not be so expansive as to include televised proceedings of the trial. Ms. Kenderson objects to the inclusion of television cameras in the courtroom, providing it will unnecessarily distract from due process and a fair trial for her client. The judge denies Ms. Kenderson's motion and allows the television cameras in the courtroom. Does the inclusion of the television cameras violate Mr. Janson's right to a fair trial and go beyond the intent of a "public trial"? Why or why not?

2) Susan Johnson has been arrested for shoplifting. Ms. Johnson attempted to shoplift a

collectible music record from a music store that retailed for $75. Ms. Johnson finds out that she is not going to be allowed a jury trial for her shoplifting charge. Ms. Johnson files a motion with the court that this is a violation of her 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. Is Ms. Johnson's assertion correct? Why or why not?

3) Gary Lipshod was indicted by a federal grand jury for violation of RICO laws. Due to a backlog of cases and the transfer of paper files to digital files and the transfer of some personnel to different divisions, the indictment for Mr. Lipshod was effectively lost. Nine years following the indictment, personnel relocate the indictment and Mr. Lipshod is placed under arrest. Mr. Lipshod's attorney, Mr. Whineglass, argues that the indictment is invalid because the state waited too long to take Mr. Lipshod to trial, thereby violating Mr.

Lipshod's 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. Is Mr. Whineglass's assertion correct? Why or why not?

4) Mr. Jose Rodriguez is on trial for extreme DUI. On the third day of trial, during a trial recess, Mr. Rodriguez elects to leave the proceedings because he doesn't want to miss the high school state baseball championships; Mr. Rodriguez's son is a pitcher and it looks like his team may win the championship. In Mr. Rodriguez's absence, prosecutions witness, Ms. Lowe, testified that she observed Mr. Rodriguez driving in an erratic manner. Mr. Rodriguez is convicted of extreme DUI. On appeal, Mr. Rodriguez argues that his 6th Amendment right of confrontation has been violated because he would have directed his attorney to cross-examine the witness (no defense examination occurred). Is Mr. Rodriguez correct that his 6th Amendment right of confrontation has been violated?

5) During a preliminary hearing, witness Tony Bendit testified against the defendant, Thomas Jones. Mr. Bendit testified that the Mr. Jones sold him heroin. Mr. Jones was represented by an attorney during the preliminary hearing. At trial, the witness, Tony Bendit, testified that he no longer could remember anything concerning the defendant. The prosecutor, Frank Seenatra, offered the record of Mr. Bendit's testimony during the preliminary hearing. Mr. Jones defense attorney, Bobby Daring, argues that the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony is a violation of Mr. Jones 6th Amendment right of confrontation, because he is not being allowed to examine a witness. Is Mr. Daring's assertion correct? Why or why not?