Amendment VIIn ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ....
Wrong! Yes it says "In ALL criminal prosecutions" in the 6th Amendment. Most people would agree that "ALL" means in "Every Single Prosecution" or in "ALL Prosecutions". But sorry to say some government buerocrats say the word "ALL" doesn't really mean "ALL".
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled many times that the word "ALL" in the 6th Amendment doesn't really mean "ALL". These U.S. Supreme Court cases have ruled that the word "ALL" really means "SOME" or "BIG" or "MAJOR" but certainly not "ALL", "TRIVIAL" or "MINOR".
The court has ruled your only entitled to a jury trial when the government is going to jail you for over 6 months on any single charge. Here are some of the U.S. Supreme Court cases which go back over 112 years to 1888 which have ruled that "ALL" really means "SOME" in the 6th Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled in each of these cases that your not entitled to a trial by jury unless the crime carries a sentence of more then 6 months AND the judge PLANS to sentence you to more then 6 months.
You have probably noticed almost every time you see a city or county law posted somewhere it says punishable by up to 6 months in jail.
The reason for this is so the government doesn't have to give you a trial by jury. Since the U.S. Supreme Court flushed the 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury down the toilet your city, county and state courts also flush your constitional right to a trial by jury down the toilet. The city paid Judge can then blindly rubber stamp any one arrested for these crimes as GUILTY with out the fear of a jury of their peers finding them NOT GUILTY.
Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that even if the court plans to sentence you to 100 years in jail for 200 charges that all have sentences of 6 months you still dont need a trial by jury. (After Officer Friendly who hates you cuz your a mexican / negro / jew / lawyer / gay / whatever writes you 200 tickets for spitting on the sidewalk 200 times (which has a 6 month sentence) you can be jailed for 100 years by the judge with no jury trial.)
Here are some key points from the 3 Supreme Court cases which all ruled a jury trial is not required. You don't need to be a legal wiz to understand the simple language in the cases in which they flush the 6th Amendment down the toilet.
U.S. Supreme Court
Lewis v. United States (95-6465), 518 U.S 322 (1996).
Petitioner was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, each charge carrying a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months. He requested a jury, but the magistrate judge ordered a bench trial, explaining that because she would not sentence him to more than six months' imprisonment, he was not entitled to a jury trial. The District Court affirmed. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that the Sixth Amendment jury trial right pertains only to those offenses for which the legislature has authorized a maximum penalty of over six months' imprisonment, and that because each offense charged here was petty in character, the fact that petitioner was facing more than six months' imprisonment in the aggregate did not entitle him to a jury trial.<snip>
The fact that petitioner was charged with two counts of a petty offense, and therefore faced an aggregate potential prison term greater than six months, does not change Congress' judgment of the particular offense's gravity, nor does it transform the petty offense into a serious one, to which the jury trial right would apply.
U.S. Supreme Court
CODISPOTI v. PENNSYLVANIA, 418 U.S. 506 (1974)
<snip>
The judge in the contempt proceedings, who refused petitioners' request for a jury trial, imposed consecutive sentences, Codispoti receiving six months for each of six contempts and three months for the seventh (aggregating over three years), and Langnes six months for each of five contempts and two months for the sixth (aggregating close to three years). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
BLANTON v. NORTH LAS VEGAS, 489 U.S. 538 (1989)
Petitioners, first-time offenders, were charged with DUI in separate incidents. The Municipal Court denied each petitioner's demand for a jury trial. On appeal, the Judicial District Court again denied petitioner Blanton's request but granted petitioner Fraley's. The Nevada Supreme Court remanded both cases, concluding that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for a DUI offense.
<snip>
There is no Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with DUI. This Court has long held that petty crimes or offenses are not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision.
<snip>
Supreme Court concluded, inter alia, that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for a DUI offense because the maximum term of incarceration is only six months and the maximum possible fine is $1,000.
<snip>
As for a prison term of six months or less, we recognized that it will seldom be viewed by the defendant as "trivial or `petty.'" Id., at 73. But we [489 U.S. 538, 543] found that the disadvantages of such a sentence, "onerous though they may be, may be outweighed by the BENEFITS that result from SPEEDY AND INEXPENSIVE NONJURY adjudications." Ibid.; see also Duncan, supra, at 160.