What does the Supreme Court’s decision to ban non-unanimous juries mean for Oregon?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2020
- The US Supreme Court made a monumental decision that will impact every courtroom in the state of Oregon by banning non-unanimous jury verdicts.
In arguing the case before the high court last August, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said the state's criminal justice system would be "overwhelmed" by such a ruling.
"Such a ruling would automatically require retrial in many hundreds, if not thousands, of cases on direct review," Rosenblum told the court.
In arguing the case before the high court last August, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said the state's criminal justice system would be "overwhelmed" by such a ruling.
She said in older cases, a retrial would be impossible "as witnesses disappear, memories fade, and evidence is lost."
Two states, Louisiana and Oregon, allowed defendants to be convicted on divided votes.
Monday's decision tossed out the conviction and life sentence of a Louisiana man, Evangelisto Ramos, who was found guilty of murder by a 10-2 jury vote. He will likely get a new trial.
Louisiana recently changed its law to require unanimous verdicts, but that change did not apply to some previous convictions, such as the Ramos case.
Read more: www.kgw.com/article/news/loca...
Supreme Court rulings which are not unanimous are therefore also unconstitutional.
Is this why the DA quit in OREGON 😂 honestly it's ALL about the BAG!💵
"innocent"
everything HAS to be all about skin color.... while those same ppl yell "racist" while they base their entire existence on skin color.
no cuz of me
were all the supreme court judges alive and well and not senile?
My issue is that the supreme court doesn't practise what it preaches. Even this decision wasn't unanimous and all supreme court cases require only a majority. Should unanimity be required for appeals and supreme courts (state and federal) too? Whats good for the goose...
thats one way to spend stimulus money
Apparently that law professor doesn't understand reasonable doubt or the purpose and importance of the concept. That's sad and scary. But so is the racism that still exists in Oregon.