SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2020, @02:43AM (1 child)
Are non-unanimous acquittals allowed? That wasn't entirely clear.
Our justice system should require unanimous votes to convict in criminal trials. The standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a juror doesn't believe the defendant is guilty, there's reasonable doubt.
There's no such reason to require unanimous acquittals. Allowing a vote of 10-2 or 9-3 to acquit in a criminal trial wouldn't be a bad idea. Modern juries are usually a joke. But there's a reason the founding fathers insisted on the right for a jury trial in criminal trials. Jury trials were used in medieval England as a check against overly harsh laws. Juries not only ensured there was fairness in deciding the verdict but also could refuse to sentence criminals if the laws were unjust or carried excessive punishments. Juries still have the power to decide both facts and law, though judges rarely mention the latter power. It would be easier to nullify unjust laws if unanimous acquittals weren't required. We have plenty of laws with very harsh sentences. Prisons are generally overcrowded and there's a compelling argument that conditions in many prisons constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Juries should always be informed of their power to decide facts and law, though a Supreme Court ruling removed the obligation to inform juries of the latter power. Allowing acquittals to be non-unanimous would also give juries more power. The jury isn't there to serve the interests of the state. It's a check on the state's power. Giving juries greater ability to acquit would allow them to better check the state's power.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 24 2020, @01:04AM
It's sometimes worse than just not being informed. The last time I was in voir dire, we were asked to swear an oath to judge only the facts and not the law itself. When I indicated that I could not conscionably swear to that, I was dismissed.
People who distribute flyers to prospective jurors informing them of their right to nullify tend to find themselves with ill-fitting charges lodged against them.