Law SCOTUS Ramos v. Louisiana Decision: Unanimous verdict requirement

[Lead]

Found some interesting reads on this latest decision with SCOTUS where you saw an odd split among the justices in reversing a previous decision 6-3
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ramos-v-louisiana/
Judgment: Reversed, 6-3
Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Support: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch
Dissent: Roberts, Kagan, Alito

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

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.

Law people.... ASSEMBLEEEEE and discuss
@Quipling
@Lord Coke
@Trotsky
@panamaican
@Amerikuracana

 

[Lead]

Some have pointed to a look at Kagan and Kavanaugh's approach to presidence and what it could mean to upcoming cases.
A Precedent Overturned Reveals a Supreme Court in Crisis
New York Times

I have no reason to think Justice Kavanaugh is particularly interested in jury unanimity. But I do remember his carefully chosen words to Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican who supports abortion rights, words she found sufficiently reassuring to earn her vote for his bitterly contested confirmation. Roe v. Wade was “settled law,” he said, a statement of the obvious but sufficiently nuanced to take the relieved senator off the hook. Recalling that masterful locution, it comes as no surprise to find Justice Kavanaugh passionately interested in the nature and meaning of Supreme Court precedent. And on this court, in this case, he was not alone.



Was it Justice Kavanaugh’s vote to hear the Ramos case that broke the logjam and enabled the court to grant review? We may never know. But from the multiple opinions, including his, it’s clear that what this case was really about was precedent: when to honor it, when to discard it and how to shape public perceptions of doing the latter. Justice Kavanaugh’s 18-page concurring opinion, which no other justice joined, included a list of 30 of “the court’s most notable and consequential decisions” that overturned earlier rulings — a kind of “30 ways to leave your lover” inventory of decisions that occupied the ideological spectrum from Brown v. Board of Education to Citizens United.

Everyone Is Mad at Elena Kagan
Slate

Justice Elena Kagan shocked the world on Monday when she joined a dissent by Justice Samuel Alito that would’ve made Robert Bork proud. In Ramos v. Louisiana, Alito contested the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision striking down split verdicts, which allow conviction by a nonunanimous jury. Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, typically sides with the court’s liberal wing on civil rights and criminal law. Yet here she was, joining a reactionary dissent defending an unjust practice rooted in bigotry. Civil libertarians were understandably disappointed, baffled, angry, skeptical, and saddened.

Kagan’s vote in Ramos really shouldn’t have come as a surprise: The justice crosses ideological lines in divided decisions more frequently than any of her liberal colleagues do. She’s also a pragmatist with a fierce commitment to precedent who will follow her principles even when they lead to an outcome she dislikes. Kagan is no closet conservative. She is playing the long game in two related ways: establishing herself as the court’s fiercest defender of precedent and sacrificing ideological purity in favor of compromise with her conservative colleagues. But that is no guarantee that she will prevail, or that any of her compromises will actually pay off.

 

[Lead]

Missed @Zankou as well

 

[Amerikuracana]

I'm leaving in a second, but will come back to this. I believe it was some states (down south?) that did not require a unanimous verdict to impose sentence. We discussed it briefly in law school. I'll read the opinion and the case in question later tonight. Thanks for posting.

 

[xcvbn]

Good decision

 

[Lead]

I'm leaving in a second, but will come back to this. I believe it was some states (down south?) that did not require a unanimous verdict to impose sentence. We discussed it briefly in law school. I'll read the opinion and the case in question later tonight. Thanks for posting.

Louisiana and Oregon I believe

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Alito crying in the dissent about the purity and importance of stare decisis less than two years after writing the Janus opinion overruling Abood is pure comedy. I'm sure he'll have no reservations when it comes to Roe/Casey as well.

As to the majority in Ramos, I don't think it's clear whether the drafters of the 6th Amendment had a common understanding on the unanimity requirement for criminal trials. Madison's original draft had explicit unanimity language included but it was subsequently removed before passage. Why it was removed, whether via objection or redundancy, is not clear. I would probably have sided with the dissent on this one.

 

[panamaican]

I'll be back after I read it.