Published on: Wednesday, December 2, 2020

On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana that the Sixth Amendment establishes a right to a unanimous jury that applies in both federal and state courts. In that case, the Court struck down state laws in Louisiana and Oregon that allowed people accused of serious crimes to be convicted by a non-unanimous jury vote. See previous coverage here.

The court laid out the history behind the laws in both states, finding that the non-unanimous jury provision was a way to ensure that even if one or two Black people made it on to a jury, their participation would be "meaningless."  The adoption of the non-unanimous jury rule in Oregon, the court wrote, "can similarly be traced to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and efforts to dilute the influence of racial and ethnic and religious minorities on Oregon juries."

On Wednesday in Edwards v. Vannoy, the justices heard argument on whether people whose convictions became final before the Ramos decision can now take advantage of it. Louisiana and Oregon  as well as Puerto Rico argue that such a ruling could “seriously strain” their systems by reopening many years’ worth of convictions. "In the end, the state has no legitimate interest in avoiding retroactivity but for its desire to let Mr. Edwards languish in Angola for the rest of his life," Edwards's attorney argued. "On what grounds can we let this happen when we know his conviction is unconstitutional? The answer to that question is none."

The Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and other groups have documented that it would affect at least 955 prisoners who were convicted by non-unanimous juries, and they speculate that it could affect another 646 past cases in which there is not yet documented proof of a split verdict.