Opinion analysis

Supreme Court Monday Determined by 6-3 voting Before last year’s decision, their conviction had become a prisoner of the final sentence Ramos v. LouisianaIt is believed that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution establishes the right of unanimous jury applicable in both federal and state courts, and cannot be used in federal collateral review. The geographic impact of Monday’s decision is limited to Louisiana and Oregon, the only two states in recent years that have allowed a jury to reach a unanimous verdict.The decision means that, prior to this, hundreds of non-homogeneous juries in the two states were found guilty Ramos Will not try to overthrow their beliefs.Monday’s ruling, issued on the day of the court Announced that it will challenge Mississippi’s ban on abortion Might fall Roy v. Wade, Also made the justices have differences in respecting precedents.

Disputes about unanimous jury verdicts can be traced back nearly 50 years until the court’s ruling in 1972. Apodaca v. OregonIt is believed that although the “Sixth Amendment” guarantees the right of unanimous jury in federal criminal cases, this right does not apply to defendants in state trials. The judges were very divided when they came to their conclusions: four of them will rule that the Sixth Amendment does not require a unanimous jury, and four different judges will rule that the Sixth Amendment guarantees Enjoy the right of unanimous approval in the two federations. And the state trial. The rest is determined by the Ninth Justice Lewis Powell (Lewis Powell). He wrote that the Sixth Amendment protects defendants in federal criminal trials with unanimous jury rights, but defendants in state criminal trials do not.

In 2020 Ramos, The Supreme Court overturned its position with 6 votes to 3 votes. Apodaca. The opinion of Judge Neil Gorsuch believes that the majority explained that after the passage of the Sixth Amendment, there has been a long history of unanimous ruling. Gorach also emphasized that both Louisiana and Oregon have imposed unanimous verdicts on the jury for racist reasons.but Ramos Regarding whether the decision has retrospective effect, people’s opinions have yet to be resolved.

The case was decided by the court on Monday, Edwards v. VannoIt was the case of Thedrick Edwards. He was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment and sentenced to life imprisonment, with almost no possibility of parole. He was involved in a series of crimes in Louisiana 15 years ago, including armed robbery, rape and kidnapping. Edwards, the only black juror in the Edwards trial, who voted innocent for various reasons, was also black. Edwards’ conviction became the final verdict in 2011.

The judgement of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, along with other conservative judges in the court, explained, Ramos A “new rule” was announced because “many courts Apodaca Allow the jury to make a unanimous verdict in the state criminal trial. Kavanaugh wrote that, according to the Supreme Court’s case law, the decision to establish new criminal procedure rules generally does not apply to cases where prisoners seek federal post-conviction relief. Kavanaugh acknowledged that the court has recognized this general presumption. Exception, because these rules are so important that they have risen to the level of “watershed” rules. However, Kavanaugh pointed out that the courts have not really found such rules in the past 32 years, and it shows that there will be no such rules in the future. It is too possible to admit such a rule.

Kavanaugh suggested: “Continue to clarify the theoretical exceptions that have never been actually applied in practice,” giving the defendant false hope, distorting the law, misleading judges, and wasting defense lawyers, prosecutors, and courts. Resources. Therefore, Kavanaugh concluded, “Now is the time-probably a long time in the past-to clarify the standard that has become more and more obvious in the past 32 years: the new rules of procedure do not apply to federal collateral reviews.”

The court’s decision aroused strong opposition from Judge Elena Kagan, who was joined by Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan believes that the unanimous request of the jury is clearly a watershed rule, so that most people have no choice but to completely abandon the watershed exception. Kagan insisted that although no one asked it to do so, and there was no good reason to do so, it did. Kagan concluded: “Most people climb, not surpass” the court should generally follow the standards established by its precedent principles??.

This article is Originally published on the court Hao Hao.