Ramos v. Louisiana [SCOTUSbrief]

Does the Constitution guarantee the right to a unanimous jury verdict in criminal trials? Policy analyst Jay Schweikert of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice presents the case of Ramos v. Louisiana in which the Supreme Court will examine whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict. Oral argument is October 7, 2019.
JUDGMENT: April 20, 2020. Reversed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh joined in part. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined, and which Justice Kagan joined in part.
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.
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Jay Schweikert:
www.cato.org/people/jay-schwe...
Follow Jay Schweikert on Twitter: @Jay_Schweikert
/ jay_schweikert
* * * * *
Related links:
State of Louisiana Versus Raul Ramos
law.justia.com/cases/louisian...
Ramos v. Louisiana on SCOTUSblog
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Ramos v. Louisiana on Oyez:
www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-5924
Differing views:
SCOTUS opens new term with criminal law cases addressing insanity defense and unanimous juries
www.abajournal.com/web/article...
Jim Crow Returns to the Supreme Court
newrepublic.com/article/15488...

[@DJNAZZZZTY]

So if it were a 7 - 5 split the defendant in any case is still found guilty?

[@lexiemichelle1832]

Only if fewer that 10 jurors voted for conviction was a mistrial declared i think

[@bensonfang1868]

The ideological split in this case is very interesting

[@huddless50]

How about this for your consideration. If the jury is not unanimous the defendant goes free. In other words the state or Feds must prove beyond a doubt (in criminal & civil cases) to all on the jury otherwise they lose. No more "hung" juries where they can retry.

[@brandoncameron2686]

Oh my god. I've seen cases where they've retried a hung jury 2 or 3 times. That's insane. And it's totally unfair to a defendant, unless that defendant is rich. You've got to have resources to go through that many trials.

[@NithinJune]

it's kinda crazy that this case is in 2019 and not like 1935

[@dallashill5771]

38,000 views and five comments? Hmm.

[@co9971]

its a lot to consider. personally, my knee jerk reaction is to be disagree with the ramos ruling.

[@teoanselmi581]

@@co9971 Why ?