U.S. Supreme Court requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court building exterior seen in Washington, U.S., January 21, 2020. REUTERS/Sarah Silbiger

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury requires a unanimous verdict for serious crimes, siding with a Louisiana man convicted of murder and paving the way for potentially hundreds of defendants found guilty by divided juries to receive new trials.

 

Only two of the 50 states, Louisiana and Oregon, have permitted non-unanimous verdicts. Writing for the court in the 6-3 ruling, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that the non-unanimous verdict requirement in both states traced back to past racist policies intended to reduce the power of non-white jurors to influence the outcome of trials.

 

The ruling, overturning a 1972 Supreme Court precedent, means that Evangelisto Ramos, who was convicted by a 12-member jury on a 10-2 vote, is likely to get a new trial. Ramos, found guilty in the 2014 New Orleans murder of a woman named Trinece Fedison whose body was found in a trash can, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

 

The justices concluded that the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to an impartial trial, requires that jurors be unanimous to convict in serious criminal cases. Gorsuch noted that historically some minor crimes do not require a jury trial.

 

Louisiana updated its law to prohibit non-unanimous verdicts starting last year but that change did not apply retroactively.

 

The ruling could benefit hundreds of inmates convicted with non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon by leading to new trials.

 

"We are heartened that the court has held, once and for all, that the promise of the Sixth Amendment fully applies in Louisiana, rejecting any concept of second-class justice," said Ben Cohen, a lawyer for Ramos.

 

The office of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said in a statement that the state's priorities have not changed as a result of the ruling.

 

"Our law has since been changed and the Supreme Court has now issued this new ruling, yet our focus remains the same: to uphold the rule of law and protect victims of crime," the statement said.

 

Gorsuch said there is evidence that when the Sixth Amendment was enacted, it was assumed there must be a unanimous verdict.

 

"This court has repeatedly and over many years recognized that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity," Gorsuch wrote.

 

Two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, joined Gorsuch and three liberal justices - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor - in the majority.

 

A 1972 Supreme Court ruling that state court juries did not have to be unanimous drove the divisions among the justices in the case. The majority voted to overrule that precedent, but the three dissenting justices said there was not a compelling reason to overturn it.

 

Writing in dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the ruling "imposes a potentially crushing burden on the courts and criminal justice systems" in Louisiana and Oregon.

 

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts also were in dissent.

 

How the court addresses overturning its own precedents is a topic of contention, with high stakes for abortion rights.

 

Abortion rights activists fear that the court's 5-4 conservative majority may seek to undermine or overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized the procedure nationwide. The court is currently weighing a challenge to Louisiana abortion restrictions that could indicate which way it is heading, with a ruling due by the end of June.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-04-21

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[worgeordie]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

12-member jury on a 10-2 vote

That should be enough to convict anyone,otherwise too many are

not going to be found guilty,if it requires all 12 jury members to

find a person guilty,what about a 11-1 conviction ?,while no innocent

person should go to jail,many guilty people won't be going to jail if

it takes the full 12 to find a person guilty.

regards Worgeordie

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

in the 6-3 ruling

I find it hard to believe that 3 Supreme Court judges would vote to allow minority convictions. Mind boggling.

A trial is not democracy.

[Seth1a2a]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Writing for the court in the 6-3 ruling,

As you can see, it's not that easy for them to practice what they preach...…..

[Sujo]

47 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

That should be enough to convict anyone,otherwise too many are

not going to be found guilty,if it requires all 12 jury members to

find a person guilty,what about a 11-1 conviction ?,while no innocent

person should go to jail,many guilty people won't be going to jail if

it takes the full 12 to find a person guilty.

regards Worgeordie

It seems to work quite well elsewhere.

 

The saying is that it is better for 10 guilty to go free than 1 innocent to be guilty. It is only for the serious crimes. So if facing the death penalty or life it is much better to be that sure of guilt. There is an awful high percentage of innocents on death row and this could help.

[Tug]

Good something serious enough to destroy someone’s life must be proven beyond doubt

Edited April 21, 2020 by Tug

[DoctorG]

Good to see the SC return a non-partisan ruling.

[JCauto]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I find it hard to believe that 3 Supreme Court judges would vote to allow minority convictions. Mind boggling.

A trial is not democracy.

Must have been an interesting debate when the three dissenters are Alito, Roberts and Kagan. Seems not to be something decided on partisan lines, so likely a strictly legal issue.

Edited April 21, 2020 by JCauto
Kagan, not Ginsburg.

[jack7106]

Of course judges will rule this way as they are a self-fulfilling prophecy and lining the pockets of their own colleagues.

Most lawyers/solicitors that I have met over the years are bottom feeders and pray on people‘s weaknesses/fear and lack of knowledge????????‍♂️????????

[sirineou]

9 hours ago, worgeordie said:

That should be enough to convict anyone,otherwise too many are

not going to be found guilty,if it requires all 12 jury members to

find a person guilty,what about a 11-1 conviction ?,while no innocent

person should go to jail,many guilty people won't be going to jail if

it takes the full 12 to find a person guilty.

regards Worgeordie

Guilty People go free all the time ,

If there was ever a good reason for some  guilty people to go free, it would be to ensure that innocent ones don't go to jail.  

Edited April 21, 2020 by sirineou
typo

[Mayhem11]

It is fundamental to criminal jurisprudence that a unanimous verdicts are required. Even unanimous verdict juries get it wrong E.g. the conviction of Timothy Evans who went to the gallows for the Christie murders in the UK. The likelihood of majority verdict juries getting it wrong is increased. The idea of majority verdicts is to secure more convictions, not dispensing justice.

[Pedrogaz]

Brilliant decision. But not much will change.....the all white juries will still convict black men 12-0.