nola.com link

quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that juries across the nation must be unanimous to convict or acquit a criminal defendant, outlawing the split verdicts that had persisted in Louisiana since openly racist lawmakers enshrined them in the state Constitution during the Jim Crow era.

In a splintered, 6-3 decision, the high court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial implicitly requires a unanimous verdict, and that the need for jury consensus in federal courtrooms applies equally to state courts through the 14th Amendment.

Good.

'Twas a horrible practice.

Won't that just cause more mistrials?

Jim

Wow. How was this even a thing?

Not really. Non-unanimous "guilty" verdict are only a thing in couple states, IIRC.

Less than a couple. It's currently just Oregon, which only requires 10 of the 12 jurors for a conviction on non-murder felony charges. (Murder charges require unanimous.) Louisiana was the other holdout, but they did away with nonunanimous jury verdicts last year.

Considering it's only one state, it had only applied to some felonies there anyway, and only an extremely small number of criminal cases ever even go to jury trials (less than 3%), this will only affect a minuscule number of cases overall.

But it's a good ruling nonetheless.

If the wording is correct, this will cause more mistrials.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Less than a couple. It's currently just Oregon, which only requires 10 of the 12 jurors for a conviction on non-murder felony charges. (Murder charges require unanimous.) Louisiana was the other holdout, but they did away with nonunanimous jury verdicts last year.

Considering it's only one state, it had only applied to some felonies there anyway, and only an extremely small number of criminal cases ever even go to jury trials (less than 3%), this will only affect a minuscule number of cases overall.

But it's a good ruling nonetheless.

Seems as much a formality at this point, putting their stamp on an already dying trend.

So, are they now going to release all those convicted by "split juries"?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Won't that just cause more mistrials?

Jim

If 12 people aren’t in agreement over the evidence or lack thereof, the accused should walk. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Won't that just cause more mistrials?

Jim

If 12 people aren’t in agreement over the evidence or lack thereof, the accused should walk. Period.

It also takes 12 people to acquit. Mistrial means you bring it to trial again and again until you get 12 to agree. Just not having 12 people to convict doesn't mean the suspect is innocent or they walk because 12 couldn't agree. It doesn't make them guilty, either. It just is.

More mistrals always beats more innocent people in jail. Jailing people (or more accurately, literally taking away ones liberties), should be the very last and final option of any society.

In the same way it's purposefully difficult to amend the Constitution, we (humanity at large) need to do everything within our powers to ensure we never jail or harm the innocent.

The bar should be and remain very high to jail someome, even for 10min.

I support almost anything that helps this along.

We'll get the really bad ones eventually.

Freedom has its costs. So be it.

6-3 decision in favor of unanimity. Just sayin'...

Not sure why it ever made it to SCOTUS

We voted it out in 2018

Odd that the word “implicit” has these two meanings:

1. Implied though not plainly expressed.

3. With no qualification or question, absolute.

The distinction between the two seems highly relevant

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
It also takes 12 people to acquit. Mistrial means you bring it to trial again and again until you get 12 to agree.

Not necessarily. The prosecutor may decide they're unlikely ever to receive a unanimous decision and choose to dismiss the charges.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Won't that just cause more mistrials?

Jim

If 12 people aren’t in agreement over the evidence or lack thereof, the accused should walk. Period.

It also takes 12 people to acquit. Mistrial means you bring it to trial again and again until you get 12 to agree. Just not having 12 people to convict doesn't mean the suspect is innocent or they walk because 12 couldn't agree. It doesn't make them guilty, either. It just is.

If a person isn't convicted, it absolutely means that he's innocent. He just wasn't acquitted.

And good. If the state wants to retry him, have at it. But until all 12 agree, there shouldn't be a criminal conviction.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
If the wording is correct, this will cause more mistrials.

Mistrials are rare in my jurisdiction. I can't even remember the last one I had.

IIRC, you are a federal officer where 12 jurors are always required so it may be higher. But, in many states, outside of capital murder cases, it's common to have 8 person juries on felony cases and 4-6 on misdemeanors.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé

And good. If the state wants to retry him, have at it. But until all 12 agree, there shouldn't be a criminal conviction.

So OJ was innocent?

I understand what you are saying but acquitted or mistrial doesn’t equate to didn’t do it. It is what it is. That is my point. People get retried and convicted all the time. A mistrial does not stand for didn’t do it.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. Dude asked the question if this will lead to more mistrials.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
The distinction between the two seems highly relevant

Don't let yourself make the mistake that someone else did of letting yourself be misled by art and usage. The word means the same thing as 'inherent'; it's just more appropriately applied to concepts and other things that aren't 'born' in some sense. All it really says is that something is automatically a part of something else whether you say so or not and whether it's immediately obvious or not.

People then take the meaning of the word in different directions when they go off into either one or the other common meanings for the word that you referred to. But in that case you're looking at a word with a meaning that people essentially get away with assigning to the word because the meaning they want to apply seems to be a natural extension of what the word specifically means.

Coffee. God, I need more coffee.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Won't that just cause more mistrials?

Jim

If 12 people aren’t in agreement over the evidence or lack thereof, the accused should walk. Period.

This.

Better to set 100 guilty people free than jail 1 innocent, or whatever that quote is.

I actually always thought it had to be unanimous anyways.