What did the Supreme Court decide in Ramos v Louisiana?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2020
- This video introduces the Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. In this April 20, 2020 decision the Supreme Court rejected a prior decision (Apodaca v. Oregon) and held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants in state courts.
Click here for a brief introduction to why this case raises questions concerning precedent and abortion rights: uslawessentials.com/connectio...
uslawessentials.com
Interesting thanks.
so, that basically that decision is reinforcing the "beyond a reasonable doubt" for convictions?
I think that's a good way of putting the purpose of the unanimous jury verdict.
Does this apply retroactively?
To an extent - - the Supreme Court, in Griffith v Kentucky, held that a new rule for criminal prosecutions applies retroactively to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/314/ I think Ramos should apply retroactively to any defendant whose conviction is not yet final - - that is, anyone on trial now or anyone who has not exhausted his appeal.
I don't know whether this case will be helpful to persons who were already convicted but still have time to file habeas corpus petitions. The rule in Ramos would have to be so significant that courts consider it fundamental to "ordered liberty". supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/
The Supreme Court just ruled that Ramos does not apply retroactively:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5807_new_3e04.pdf
@@USLawEssentials Thank you.
I just created a sort video on the retroactivity issue: ua-cam.com/video/fSisjxFeRYg/v-deo.html
Finally a normal person that says Oregon correctly. Unless someone can prove Thomas Jefferson said Oregun it’s Oregone
I probably mispronounced Louisiana, Ramos, and Apodaca.
Nah, he said Oregon and Ramos wrong.