Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional

[Doc7505]

Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional​

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...constitutional
April 20, 2020 ~~ By Harper Neidig
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that defendants in criminal trials can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, striking down a scheme that has been rejected by every state except one.
The court said in a divided opinion that the Constitution requires agreement among all members of a jury in order to impose a guilty verdict.
"Wherever we might look to determine what the term 'trial by an impartial jury trial' meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion. "A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict."
Oregon is the only state left in which defendants can be convicted over the dissent of up to two jurors. Louisiana recently abandoned the practice after more than a century of use.



Comment:
Unfortunately the founders had no idea how far and depraved our country would become. Being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard. Today you cannot find 12 people (selected at random) smart enough to agree on anything.

 

[satrebil]

As they should have.

This is the kind of case that shouldn't even exist. What the fuck...

 

[Dekster]

When my city was a white majority, juries would sentence you to death for a parking ticket. Now that it is a black majority, Donald Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Main Street in broad daylight and get away with it. I am not sure which way is worse.

Anyway, I think the military still allows a plurality, but I don't know a lot about the new "Short Martial" process and the changes that have happened in the last couple years.

 

[rightwinger]

Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional​

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...constitutional
April 20, 2020 ~~ By Harper Neidig
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that defendants in criminal trials can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, striking down a scheme that has been rejected by every state except one.
The court said in a divided opinion that the Constitution requires agreement among all members of a jury in order to impose a guilty verdict.
"Wherever we might look to determine what the term 'trial by an impartial jury trial' meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion. "A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict."
Oregon is the only state left in which defendants can be convicted over the dissent of up to two jurors. Louisiana recently abandoned the practice after more than a century of use.



Comment:
Unfortunately the founders had no idea how far and depraved our country would become. Being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard. Today you cannot find 12 people (selected at random) smart enough to agree on anything.

Doesn’t seem to be a problem when we have 2.5 million people in jail