Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday April 21 2020, @09:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the keeping-it-legal dept.

Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional

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.

From the Ramos v. Louisiana syllabus:

In 48 States and federal court, a single juror's vote to acquit is enough to prevent a conviction. But two States, Louisiana and Oregon, have long punished people based on 10-to-2 verdicts. In this case, petitioner Evangelisto Ramos was convicted of a serious crime in a Louisiana court by a 10-to-2 jury verdict. Instead of the mistrial he would have received almost anywhere else, Ramos was sentenced to life without parole. He contests his conviction by a nonunanimous jury as an unconstitutional denial of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Held: The judgment is reversed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday April 21 2020, @11:29PM (13 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday April 21 2020, @11:29PM (#985587) Journal

    I was wondering about this myself, this is all that I can find, from the wiki
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon [wikipedia.org]

    Oregon's constitutional amendment was put on the ballot[6] a year after a lone holdout juror prevented a Jewish man from being found guilty of murdering a Protestant one.[13] On Nov. 25, 1933, the day after the jury convicted on the lesser offense of manslaughter (resulting in a three-year sentence), The Morning Oregonian "railed against the juror in an editorial tinged with racist undertones and nativist fervor," in which the editors wrote that "the vast immigration into America from southern and eastern Europe, of people untrained in the jury system, have combined to make the jury of twelve increasingly unwieldy and unsatisfactory."[13][36] Previous editorials around the same time "bemoaned 'mixed-blood' jurors and lamented the role that some immigrants played on juries, questioning their 'sense of responsibility' and 'views on crime and punishment.'"[13] The Oregon constitutional amendment passed on May 18, 1934.[7]

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2020, @11:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2020, @11:46PM (#985592)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:03AM (9 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:03AM (#985600) Journal
    Interesting stuff, both you and the AC, thanks.

    It's interesting how often measures that are problematic from a human rights perspective have been initially justified as necessary to constrain an out-group. I think it compares with the justification of 2nd amendment abridgement by the spectre of non-whites bearing arms, or the justification of prohibition (of alcohol/opiates/cannabis/coca) to inhibit insidious (Catholic/Chinese/Mexican/Black) seducers.

    The argument isn't even completely wrong. There are cultures that have a long history of dealing with certain drugs and have relatively few problems, others that don't may experience more difficulty when they are introduced. It's not completely wrong, but it's mostly a red-herring, as the fact shouldn't be allowed to have significant effect on policy.

    Why not? Because infantilising the citizens is not a good long term policy, even in the best case.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:57AM (8 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:57AM (#985624) Journal

      Something to keep in mind, regarding Louisiana:

      They had Napoleonic law, before being bought by the US, and they kept Napoleonic law even after becoming a state. That makes Louisiana unique, in that they have pretty much never had a presumption of innocence. The rest of the Louisiana purchase dropped Napoleonic law before becoming states, and maybe even before becoming territories. Arkansas and Mississippi law both conform to English common law far more than Louisiana does. There are some pretty stark differences between the two legal traditions.

      Oregon is very different again. As the other posters above point out, that whole business was a "popular" racist reaction to a high profile case.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nishi.b on Wednesday April 22 2020, @04:15AM (7 children)

        by nishi.b (4243) on Wednesday April 22 2020, @04:15AM (#985671)

        Presumption of innocence *is* part of "Napoleonic law". The main difference is that in common law, you are supposed to judge in conformity with past cases, whereas in Napoleonic law the judge just has to read the law (how past cases were judged can still influence, bur are not required to).

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 22 2020, @09:07AM (5 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 22 2020, @09:07AM (#985703) Journal

          Visit Mexico, as a tourist, businessman, whatever. Get involved in an auto accident. I was warned 40+ years ago NOT to drive in Mexico, because they'll keep you until everything is sorted out. With money in your pocket for bribes and a hotel, you might be semi-free while you wait. With no money, you'll sit in jail. That isn't "presumed innocence" in my book.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by nishi.b on Wednesday April 22 2020, @10:51AM (3 children)

            by nishi.b (4243) on Wednesday April 22 2020, @10:51AM (#985706)

            Yeah, because Napoleon was mexican, I guess...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @11:27AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @11:27AM (#985712)

              danged furriners is all the same.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 22 2020, @02:46PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 22 2020, @02:46PM (#985735) Journal

              LMAO, you need to study a bit of history. Here's a PDF that might help you to understand a little about Mexican law - http://www.lawmexico.com/articles/Mexican%20Legal%20System%20For%20Foreigners.pdf [lawmexico.com]

              THE MEXICAN LEGAL SYSTEM1THE MEXICAN LEGAL SYSTEM INTRODUCTIONMexico has a “civil law” legal system, whereas the United States has a “common law” legal system. In a civil law system, the application of the law is based on a codification of the laws and legal principles. These codes reflect very general divisions in law that have developed over the years. Most of Mexico’s civil law comes from the French Civil Code, known as the Napoleonic code.

              Need I help you to understand how France, and Napoleon came to be involved in Mexico? Alright, for starters, "Cinco de Mayo", commemmorates the Battle of Pueblo, fought against the French Empire, NOT against Spaniards. https://www.thoughtco.com/cinco-de-mayo-the-basics-2136661 [thoughtco.com]

              Personally, I don't celebrate Cinco de Mayo. I prefer to quietly observe Camerone Day, on April 30th. http://foreignlegion.info/battle-of-camerone/ [foreignlegion.info]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @06:32PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @06:32PM (#985807)

                >> I prefer to quietly observe Camerone Day

                Cameron Diaz has her own day there? Cool.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday April 22 2020, @03:06PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 22 2020, @03:06PM (#985740) Journal

            <no-sarcasm>
            The US would never harass and detain someone like Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org] at the behest of a private company like Adobe. Taking his passport. Detaining him here for six months away from his wife and young child. Because he dared to reveal how insanely weak Adobe's PDF DRM actually was, to the huge embarrassment of Adobe who was trying to peddle this absurdly weak system to those wanting to DRM their PDFs.
            </no-sarcasm>

            I'm so glad we got much gooder justice than these mexicans got.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday April 23 2020, @12:09AM

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday April 23 2020, @12:09AM (#985904) Journal
          "The main difference is that in common law, you are supposed to judge in conformity with past cases, whereas in Napoleonic law the judge just has to read the law"

          Well, that's not wrong. The main difference is actually that common law precedes the state, the state relies on it for authority and is to some degree constrained by it. Under your "Napoleonic" law (basically synonymous in this context with Roman law) the state is the ultimate authority, the law is whatever the state says it is, and therefore the law does not really constrain the state.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday April 22 2020, @08:20AM

    by driverless (4770) on Wednesday April 22 2020, @08:20AM (#985696)

    In particular, that link and the articles it links to mention that the suspect was Jewish, nothing more. I couldn't find anything about the ethnicity of the holdout juror in the original writeup on it [oregonlive.com]. There is mention of "immigrants from eastern Europe" and "mixed-blood jurors" so it could have been generic racism/anti-semitism, given that it was 1933.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @08:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @08:33PM (#985858)

    The Morning Oregonian "railed against the juror in an editorial tinged with racist undertones and nativist fervor,"

    oh no!, not THE TRUTH!