The Aftermath Of Banning Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts

The failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to make it landmark procedural ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana retroactive is so glaring that it is one of many rulings that undermines its legitimacy as an institution that vindicates justice. 

The U.S. Supreme Court declared split-jury verdicts unconstitutional in 2020, in a ruling known as Ramos v. Louisiana.

Oregon had been allowing split-jury verdicts since 1934, after a Jewish man accused of murder was convicted of a lesser charge because of a single juror holdout. Louisiana enshrined non-unanimous juries in its constitution in 1898, during a convention where the stated purpose was “to establish the supremacy of the white race in the state.”

The Supreme Court ruling left it up to Oregon and Louisiana to figure out what to do with the hundreds of people already in prison for such convictions. On Oct. 21, Louisiana’s Supreme Court ruled against vacating those convictions, leaving the door open for the state legislature to take action. Oregon’s Supreme Court is similarly poised to rule on the issue, in an appeal . . . that could impact an estimated 250 to 300 other inmates in the state.

From here.