Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Posted on 04/20/2020 8:25:21 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that defendants in criminal trials can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, striking down a scheme that has been rejected by every state except one.
The court said in a divided opinion that the Constitution requires agreement among all members of a jury in order to impose a guilty verdict.
"Wherever we might look to determine what the term 'trial by an impartial jury trial' meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion. "A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict."
Oregon is the only state left in which defendants can be convicted over the dissent of up to two jurors. Louisiana recently abandoned the practice after more than a century of use.
The ruling overturns the 2016 conviction of a Louisiana man named Evangelisto Ramos. A jury by a 10-2 margin found him guilty of killing a woman in New Orleans. Two years after Ramos's conviction, Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment getting rid of non-unanimous jury verdicts.
The new ruling likely means that Ramos could get a new trial.
Five justices joined Gorsuch in ruling the practice unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the decision.
Updated at 10:53 a.m.
“Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the decision.”
Interesting split, conservatives and liberals on both sides of the decision.
IN my opinion, these are the most interesting cases. There must be some really interesting arguments made (and believed) on both sides to have such a split.
Contrast that with all the famous cases, where on the one side you have the plain meaning of the Constitution and on the other you have "but it's not fair" (stomps foot)
I’m surprised that Thomas agree with this. Unanimous juries is not in the constitution.
Very interesting, especially Kagan.
Thomas vote was probably moved by this language from the opinion: “Wherever we might look to determine what the term ‘trial by an impartial jury trial’ meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion. “A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.”
Case reduction. They don’t want to be bombarded by appeals.
Original public meaning.
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
If you’re innocent get a Judge, if you’re Guilty get a Jury.
A 10 - 2 verdict is not without a reasonable doubt.
You nailed it, I think. Reasonable doubt is indicated in a non-unanimous verdict.
Amen to that.
Case reduction. They don’t want to be bombarded by appeals.”
The simplest answer is usually the right one, isn’t it.
What is "reasonable" nowadays with our infantile adult population?
I've seen ridiculous decisions from juries that no adult would condone. We simply have too many unreasonable people nowadays, and jury verdicts can be a crap shoot.
So, do all supreme court rulings have to be 100% ? / s
Looks like an Oregon PING...
So I’m assuming this applies to all trials from this date forward.?
A 10 - 2 verdict is not without a reasonable doubt.
Unless death is a mandatory punishment, two-thirds is good enough in a court-martial.
It’s the reason we have Miranda warnings.
SCOTUS was sick and tired of being bombarded with appeals from defendants who claimed not to know their rights, so they actually went case-shopping for one they could use to impose it as a universal rule. All to reduce their workload. Research it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.