What information you would provide to a group of cadets relative to the federal criminal rights a defendant has under The Bill of Rights?
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S Constitution deals with the rights of accused in criminal prosecutions. Your audience will demand that you put the information in lay terms so that they can understand the federal criminal rights a defendant has under the Bill of Rights. For example, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/

Let's expand on each of the ideas in the above quote.
• Right to a Speedy and Public Trial i.e. The guarantee of a speedy trial ''is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' it is one of those ''fundamental'' liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. 16 The protection afforded by this guarantee ''is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been 'accused' in the course of that prosecution'' (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/02.html#1 for more detail).

• Speedy Trial
o Source and Rationale i.e. The right to a speedy trial may be derived from a provision of Magna Carta and it was a right so interpreted by Coke. 12 Much the same language was incorporated into the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 13 and from there into the Sixth Amendment. Unlike other provisions of the Amendment, this guarantee can be attributable to reasons, which have to do with the rights of and infliction of harms to both defendants (lengthy remands, etc.) and society (i.e. cost of holding the defendant, or leaving them on the streets for lengthy period of time allows for the defendant to commit other crimes during that period, etc. (6th Amendment)(see more detail at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/02.html#1).
o Application and Scope (click on link for information)
o When the Right Is Denied (click on link for information)

• Public Trial i.e. ''This nation's accepted practice of guaranteeing a public trial to an accused has its roots in our English common law heritage. The exact date of its origin is obscure, but it likely evolved long before the settlement of our land as an accompaniment of the ancient institution of jury trial. In this country the guarantee to an accused of the right to a public trial first appeared in a state constitution in 1776. Following the ratification in 1791 of the Federal Constitution's Sixth Amendment . . . most of the original states and those subsequently.
The purposes of the requirement of open trials are multiple: it helps to assure the criminal defendant a fair and accurate adjudication of guilt or innocence, it provides a public demonstration of fairness, it discourages perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret bias or partiality. The Court has also expatiated upon the therapeutic value to the community of open trials to enable the public to see justice done and the fulfillment of the urge for retribution that people feel upon the commission of some kinds of crime (6th Amendment) (see more detail at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/03.html#1).

• Right to Trial by Impartial Jury
Because ''a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants,'' the Sixth Amendment provision is binding on the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 49 But inasmuch as it cannot be said that every criminal trial or any particular trial which is held without a jury is unfair, 50 it is possible for a defendant to waive the right and go to trial before a judge alone. 51 (see more detail at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/04.html#1).
• Jury Trial i.e. By the time the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted and ratified, the institution of trial by jury was almost universally revered, so revered that its history had been traced back to Magna Carta.... ''The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority (6th Amendment)
o The Attributes and Function of the Jury (click link for information)
o Criminal Proceedings to Which the Guarantee Applies (click link for information)
o Impartial Jury i.e. Impartiality as a principle of the right to trial by jury is served not only by the Sixth Amendment, which is as applicable to the States as to the Federal Government, 77 but as well by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth, 78 and perhaps the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Court's supervisory power has been directed to the issue in the federal system. 79 Prior to the Court's extension of a right to jury trials in state courts, it was firmly established that if a State chose to provide juries they must be impartial ones. 80
Impartiality is a two-fold requirement. First, ''the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment.'' 81 This requirement applies only to jury panels or venires from which petit juries are chosen, and not to the composition of the petit juries themselves. Second, there must be assurance that the jurors chosen are unbiased, i.e., willing to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented (see more detail at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/05.html#1).
• Place of Trial--Jury of the Vicinage i.e. Article III, Sec. 2 requires that federal criminal cases be tried by jury in the State and district in which the offense was committed, 123 but much criticism arose over the absence of any guarantee that the jury be drawn from the ''vicinage'' or neighborhood of the crime. 124 Madison's efforts to write into the Bill of Rights an express vicinage provision were rebuffed by the Senate, and the present language was adopted as a compromise in the 6th Amendment. 125 The provisions limit the Federal Government only. 126
An accused cannot be tried in one district under an indictment showing that the offense was committed in another; 127 the place where the offense is charged to have been committed determines the place of trial. 128 However, for offenses against federal laws not committed within any State, Congress has the sole power to prescribe the place of trial; such an offense is not local and may be tried at such place as Congress may designate. 136 The place of trial may be designated by statute after the offense has been committed. 137 (see more detail at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/06.html#1).
• Notice of Accusation i.e. The defendant has the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation entitles the defendant to insist that the indictment apprise him of the crime charged with such reasonable certainty that he can make his defense and protect himself after judgment against another prosecution on the same charge (see more detail at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/07.html#1).

• Confrontation i.e. The right of confrontation is ''[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty . . . long deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.'' 146
Before 1965, when the Court held the right to be protected against state abridgment, 147 it had little need to clarify the relationship between the right of confrontation and the hearsay rule, 148 inasmuch as its supervisory powers over the inferior federal courts permitted it to control the admission of hearsay on this basis. 149 Thus, on the basis of the Confrontation Clause, it had concluded that evidence given at a preliminary hearing could not be used at the trial if the absence of the witness was attributable to the negligence of the prosecution, 150 but that if a witness' absence had been procured by the defendant, testimony given at a previous trial on a different indictment could be used at the subsequent trial (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/08.html#1).

• Compulsory Process i.e The provision requires, of course, that the defendant be afforded legal process to compel witnesses to appear, 186 but another apparent purpose of the provision was to make inapplicable in federal trials the common-law rule that in cases of treason or felony the accused was not allowed to introduce witnesses in his defense. 187 ''The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law,'' applicable to states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the right is violated by a state law providing that coparticipants in the same crime could not testify for one another. 188
The right to present witnesses is not absolute, however; a court may refuse to allow a defense witness to testify when the court finds that defendant's counsel willfully failed to identify the witness in a pretrial discovery request and thereby attempted to gain a tactical advantage 189 (6th Amendment, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/09.html#1).
• Assistance of Counsel i.e. The Sixth Amendment has also been held to protect absolutely the right of a defendant to retain counsel and one of her or his choice and to be represented in the fullest measure by the person of her or his choice. The failure to afford the defendants an opportunity to retain counsel violates due process. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/10.html#Scene_1

• Development of an Absolute Right to Counsel at Trial i.e. The colonial and early state practice in this country was varied, ranging from the existent English practice to appointment of counsel in a few States where needed counsel could not be retained. 191 Contemporaneously with the proposal and ratification of the Sixth Amendment, Congress enacted two statutory provisions which seemed to indicate an understanding that the guarantee was limited to assuring that a person wishing and able to afford counsel would not be denied that right. 192 It was not until the 1930's that the Supreme Court began expanding the clause to its present scope. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/10.html#2

Click on the following cases that lead to the 6th Amendment in its present scope.
o Powell v. Alabama
o Johnson v. Zerbst
o Betts v. Brady and Progeny
o Gideon v. Wainwright
o Protection of the Right to Retained Counsel
o Effective Assistance of Counsel
o Self-Representation

• Right to Assistance of Counsel in Nontrial Situations i.e. ''It is central to [the principle of Powell v. Alabama] that in addition to counsel's presence at trial, the accused is guaranteed that he need not stand alone against the State at any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel's absence might derogate from the accused's right to a fair trial.'' 276 Counsel's presence at a lineup is constitutionally necessary because the lineup stage is filled with numerous possibilities for errors, both inadvertent and intentional, which cannot adequately be discovered and remedied at trial. 277 (click on the following links for further explanation).
o Judicial Proceedings Before Trial
o Custodial Interrogation
o Lineups and Other Identification Situations
o Post-Conviction Proceedings
o Noncriminal and Investigatory Proceedings

This is not exhaustive, but should give an excellent starting point for your final write-up to the cadets. In other words, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against her or him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in her or his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for her or his defence. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/

FINAL COMMENTS I HOPE THIS HELPS AND TAKE CARE