Supreme Court rules that juries must be unanimous in order to convict - Overturns laws in LA and OR.

[mclumber1]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-jury/u-s-supreme-court-rules-that-jury-verdicts-must-be-unanimous-idUSKBN2221YS?utm_source=reddit.com

Quote

 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of trial by jury requires a unanimous verdict in serious crimes, handing a victory to a Louisiana man convicted of a 2014 murder in New Orleans.

The court’s 6-3 ruling means that Evangelisto Ramos, who was convicted on a 10-2 vote of the 2014 murder of Trinece Fedison, whose body was found in a trash can, will likely get a new trial.

Only two of the 50 states, Louisiana and Oregon, have allowed for non-unanimous verdicts. Louisiana updated its law to prohibit non-unanimous verdicts starting last year but that change does not apply retroactively.

Ramos was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

 

 

In Oregon, murder already required a unanimous jury, but less serious offenses did not from what I remember.

[SaysWho?]

The 3 who voted the other way were Alito, Roberts and Kagan.

 

Also, I always thought you needed a unanimous jury everywhere. O_O

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

The 3 who voted the other way were Alito, Roberts and Kagan.

 

Also, I always thought you needed a unanimous jury everywhere. O_O

 

States do what they want until the Supreme Court incorporates a specific amendment against them.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I am in full agreement with this decision.

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Also, I always thought you needed a unanimous jury everywhere. O_O

 

[TwinIon]

I also thought that you needed a unanimous jury everywhere. It's especially crazy to me that you can convict someone to life without parole without a unanimous jury.

 

I was curious as to what the dissent was, and it wasn't what I expected, and could well have troubling implications far beyond this case. The primary reason for dissent by Alito and Kagan circles the idea of precedent. With three of the justices in the majority having argued that the prior SCOTUS decision allowing non-unanimous juries (Apodaca) was never a legitimate precedent. The dissent goes on at length why the idea of precedent it important and why the way it was handled in this case is problematic.

 

While I do think juries should be unanimous, the dissent raises troubling questions.

 

The practical implication that every decision by a non-unanimous jury over the last 48 years could be reconsidered is by itself worth considering. Apparently the majority left that question open, as they were divided on the issue. But that's not what really bothers me.

 

What concerns me is the idea that this court looks at precedent as non-binding or easily dismissed. Alito basically argues that if you're going to overturn precedent that you need to recon with the existing precedent and make a good argument for overturning it. That seems like a very reasonable place to start. If you have a court that doesn't feel bound by precedent, and you look at the things they'll be deciding on in the coming years, you should be afraid of what that could add up to, even if the essential decision here feels right.

 

Here's a PDF link to the decision, if anyone else wants to read it.

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I also thought that you needed a unanimous jury everywhere. It's especially crazy to me that you can convict someone to life without parole without a unanimous jury.

 

I was curious as to what the dissent was, and it wasn't what I expected, and could well have troubling implications far beyond this case. The primary reason for dissent by Alito and Kagan circles the idea of precedent. With three of the justices in the majority having argued that the prior SCOTUS decision allowing non-unanimous juries (Apodaca) was never a legitimate precedent. The dissent goes on at length why the idea of precedent it important and why the way it was handled in this case is problematic.

 

While I do think juries should be unanimous, the dissent raises troubling questions.

 

The practical implication that every decision by a non-unanimous jury over the last 48 years could be reconsidered is by itself worth considering. Apparently the majority left that question open, as they were divided on the issue. But that's not what really bothers me.

 

What concerns me is the idea that this court looks at precedent as non-binding or easily dismissed. Alito basically argues that if you're going to overturn precedent that you need to recon with the existing precedent and make a good argument for overturning it. That seems like a very reasonable place to start. If you have a court that doesn't feel bound by precedent, and you look at the things they'll be deciding on in the coming years, you should be afraid of what that could add up to, even if the essential decision here feels right.

 

Here's a PDF link to the decision, if anyone else wants to read it.

 

lol at that argument coming from Alito

[CitizenVectron]

11 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I also thought that you needed a unanimous jury everywhere. It's especially crazy to me that you can convict someone to life without parole without a unanimous jury.

 

I was curious as to what the dissent was, and it wasn't what I expected, and could well have troubling implications far beyond this case. The primary reason for dissent by Alito and Kagan circles the idea of precedent. With three of the justices in the majority having argued that the prior SCOTUS decision allowing non-unanimous juries (Apodaca) was never a legitimate precedent. The dissent goes on at length why the idea of precedent it important and why the way it was handled in this case is problematic.

 

While I do think juries should be unanimous, the dissent raises troubling questions.

 

The practical implication that every decision by a non-unanimous jury over the last 48 years could be reconsidered is by itself worth considering. Apparently the majority left that question open, as they were divided on the issue. But that's not what really bothers me.

 

What concerns me is the idea that this court looks at precedent as non-binding or easily dismissed. Alito basically argues that if you're going to overturn precedent that you need to recon with the existing precedent and make a good argument for overturning it. That seems like a very reasonable place to start. If you have a court that doesn't feel bound by precedent, and you look at the things they'll be deciding on in the coming years, you should be afraid of what that could add up to, even if the essential decision here feels right.

 

Here's a PDF link to the decision, if anyone else wants to read it.

 

I feel the same. I definitely agree with the overall ruling (unanimous jury conviction required), but I also fear that the conservative SCOTUS is looking to setup overturning previous SCOTUS precedent in future rulings.

[Guest]

I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. There are worthwhile arguments to be had in favor of unanimous and strong majority verdicts. I would probably lean toward unanimity though.

[Jason]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. There are worthwhile arguments to be had in favor of unanimous and strong majority verdicts. I would probably lean toward unanimity though.

With the inequitites American justice system, it's DEFINITELY better to have unanimity. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

With the inequitites American justice system, it's DEFINITELY better to have unanimity. 

Unanimity has a massive negative effect on justice for marginalized victims of crimes. It’s just not cut and dry.

[Link200]

5 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I feel the same. I definitely agree with the overall ruling (unanimous jury conviction required), but I also fear that the conservative SCOTUS is looking to setup overturning previous SCOTUS precedent in future rulings.

I thought that till I realized this was one of the few decisions that were not split on "party" lines.