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.
Good advice.
Explained by not being able to decide whether this helps or hurts Trump.
“10-2 verdict, the defendant wins. He walks, and he either stays honest, or kills some else.”
A 10-2 verdict results in a mistrial. Murder defendant stays in jail and the prosecution has the option to start the process over again.
That scenario was not at issue here in any case. Before this ruling, Oregon was the only state in the union that allowed non-unanimous decisions in felony cases and they only allowed them in non-murder trials. Louisiana was the only other state that had allowed it, but that law was overturned by a landslide amendment referendum in 2018.
Supreme Court decisions are rulings on the legality of various things...not on innocence or guilt of an individuals
/s
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.