<P> In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but also regarding any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines . In Alleyne v. United States, 11 - 9335 (2013), the Court expanded on Apprendi and Blakely by ruling that a defendant's right to a jury applies to any fact that would increase a defendant's sentence beyond the minimum otherwise required by statute . </P> <P> Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution requires defendants be tried by juries and in the state in which the crime was committed . The Sixth Amendment requires the jury to be selected from judicial districts ascertained by statute . In Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73 (1904), the Supreme Court ruled that the place where the offense is charged to have occurred determines a trial's location . Where multiple districts are alleged to have been locations of the crime, any of them may be chosen for the trial . In cases of offenses not committed in any state (for example, offenses committed at sea), the place of trial may be determined by the Congress . </P> <P> A criminal defendant has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him . Therefore, an indictment must allege all the ingredients of the crime to such a degree of precision that it would allow the accused to assert double jeopardy if the same charges are brought up in subsequent prosecution . The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) that "in an indictment...it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished ." Vague wording, even if taken directly from a statute, does not suffice . However, the government is not required to hand over written copies of the indictment free of charge . </P> <P> The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person to prove that the statement or observation was accurate . The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making the statements . Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations . Nevertheless, in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970), the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause . Hearsay is admissible under certain circumstances . For example, in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that while a defendant's out of court statements were admissible in proving the defendant's guilt, they were inadmissible hearsay against another defendant . Hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long - recognized exceptions . For example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable . However, in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope of the Confrontation Clause by ruling that "testimonial" out - of - court statements are inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial . In Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Court ruled that "testimonial" refers to any statement that an objectively reasonable person in the declarant's situation would believe likely to be used in court . In Melendez - Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___ (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), the Court ruled that admitting a lab chemist's analysis into evidence, without having him testify, violated the Confrontation Clause . In Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), the Court ruled that the "primary purpose" of a shooting victim's statement as to who shot him, and the police's reason for questioning him, each had to be objectively determined . If the "primary purpose" was for dealing with an "ongoing emergency", then any such statement was not testimonial and so the Confrontation Clause would not require the person making that statement to testify in order for that statement to be admitted into evidence . </P>

The sixth amendment ensures a citizens right to