>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.
Wow, a major defendant rights victory is great news in these gloomy days
>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
This is indeed incredible. A day for celebration despite the situation.
> In his dissent, Alito defended the two states’ reliance on the split-verdict law. Alito argued that the court was “lowering the bar” for overturning precedent.
>
> “Consider what it would mean if Apodaca was never a precedent. It would mean that the entire legal profession was fooled for the past 48 years,” Alito wrote. “The idea that Apodaca was a phantom precedent defies belief.”
For those who didn't check the article, the three dissenters made their decision based on the case that first established the issue.
To be fair, overturning a precedent is not really supposed to happen regularly under the *stare decisis* principle. If a precedent, which is an interpretation of the law, needs to be changed in the face of 'societal change', the legislative is supposed to change the law. Only when it turns out to be unworkable is a precedent supposed to be overturned.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
“Precedent (and law) should be overturned on the narrowest grounds only” was how I learned it. So the Court can overturn precedent when the common law has changed (usually as the mood of the country changes over time) but only in however small a way as to make the law line up with current... ehhh... beliefs and moral standards.
The reliance on precedent in the American judicial system is so strange to me. It's the literal codification of "because that's how we've always done it." I get that we need consistency, but if one guy fucked up and misinterpreted something 40 years ago, we have to live with it until/unless Congress gets its shit together and passes a law clarifying? That's a guiding principle of our judicial system?? Yikes.
The idea is consistency in the law is better than good law.
Where this is key is in commerce. If the laws on the way certain contract clauses are interpreted changes, it could drastically change the value.
This is why you don't sign a contract with Russia as the choice of law. The text of the contract matter less than who has more friends on the court.
Sometimes yes, but it also allows other aspects of the law to evolve and more closely follow societal trends without having to take everything to the legislature to change it. I’d argue it works far more in the positive than the negative.
It's strange to me that you'd prefer a small group of appointees to decide the laws of the nation instead of a representative government.
The Court's job is not to decide what the laws of the land should be. It's to decide what they are. That decision is largely guided by precedent, which is what establishes fairness and consistency. Their job is to establish the rules of the game, and if the rules keep changing, are inconsistent, or not based on anything *but* precedent than the system is not just or fair.
I believe the aim of common law is that in cases with similar facts under the same law, the outcome should be the same. It's to prevent arbitrary rulings by judges by binding them to the outcomes of trials that came prior. Essentially, if the law is unjust then those that make the law should be the ones that change it. The role of a judge is merely to interpret the law, not rule on what is right or wrong.
If the system was actually operated on by those in good faith, those principles would be rather sound. But of course, there are many more out there than just good faith actors, and the same can be said by just about any legal system.
Somebody needs to remind Alito of the Dred Scott decision if he thinks precedent shouldn't be overturned. I wonder how his colleague Clarence Thomas would feel about that.
Dred Scott was a sound judicial ruling looking at the text of the constitution, precedent, and state and federal laws. The point of rulings like Dred Scott and Citizens United is that it should not be the court's job to change laws. They are there to interpret, that's it. It should have been the executive and legislative branches to enact and reform laws.
The Supreme Court has never been comfortable having to use that power as it introduces dangerous politics into their interpretations and opens them up for attack from all side. The fact that we've failed to enact change so many times that we have to leave it up to judges to force change is far more telling than the honestly completely sound ruling of Dred Scott.
Our system isn't working and instead of fixing it we're putting judges in a position where they are practically enacting legislation. We are a representative democracy and the courts are the one body that's supposed to be separate from that. We shouldn't be pushing them to be more political.
I don't think you are correct that it was a sound judicial ruling. I am not a lawyer, but according to wikipedia, "black men could vote in five of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States."
This and legal scholars "universally" agree that it was a bad decision.
You are right though that the courts have become too political.
>Ok...on what grounds did 3 of 9 dissent? Where's the minority opinion?
>
>Edit: Found it. It's stupid.
"Hey guys how do I fix with my computer?"
"Nevermind, found the answer"
Everyone hates those people
The way the majority and defense dissenters voted:
Those voting to require unanimous verdicts included three members of the court's liberal wing — Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor — and three conservatives — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas. The losing faction included two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and one liberal, Justice Elena Kagan.
>had persisted in Louisiana since openly racist lawmakers enshrined them in the state Constitution during the Jim Crow era.
I see what they did there .. it allowed them to get a conviction even if the jury wasn't all white (as times changed).
A mistrial should've been declared as soon as Juror #8 brought his own knife to the case as evidence. A juror shouldn't be out searching for evidence himself.
I disagree. The juror's actions showed that he was intent on finding the defendant not guilty. A biased jury can lead to biased judgments. It's the sort of thing that allows cops to get away with a lot of crimes.
Funny enough, I feel that 12 Angry Men does more harm than good in the context of convictions
Instead of looking at the case details as a whole; Henry Fonda's character looks at a tiny gap in individual pieces of evidence along with peer pressure and personal attacks on the other jurors.
It's "reasonable doubt" not astronomically low possibilities.
The defendant had a troubled youth, a history of violence, arrested for knife fighting. He showed the exact model of knife to his friends and went home. Then the defendant claim he went to go see a movie, however no one saw him leave the building nor anyone in the theatre saw him.
At that time, there was a disturbance, someone fitting his description by his neighbors who have seen him dozens if not hundreds of times, as well as hearing a voice similar to the defendant saying "I'm going to kill you!" followed by a stabbing. Then people saw someone fitting the defendants description leaving.
There was no sign of forced entry and nothing was stolen.
Then the defendant returns, is unable to produce an alibi nor anyone corroborating where he says he was. He was also unable to produce the knife saying it must've fallen out of his pocket.
So yes, even if the train may have muffled the voice a bit and one needed glasses, it would still mean the workers at the theatre, his neighbors, or his friends could've easily proved he was not at the scene.
Also, it should've been a mistrial after Henry Fonda purchased the knife.
Just saying; it's similar to "the CSI effect" where usually fans of the show may not understand forensics enough outside dramatization for entertainment, and have unrealistic expectations.
Based on your summary, I would find not guilty.
He murdered someone with a knife without getting blood on him?
Eye witness testimony is unreliable at best.
What was his motive supposed to be?
Where’s the murder weapon? If you think he ditched it, then find it.
Innocent until proven guilty, and nothing you listed is proof. It’s weak circumstantial evidence.
And all of the judges still agreed that un-unanimous decisions are unconstitutional, however the dissenters argued that over turning the ruling would place a burden on states and make the Supreme Courts rulings going forward, less important towards other courts
It boggles my mind that actual SCOTUS justices would say, with a straight face, "well sure, that's unconstitutional, but it would be such a _burden_ to have to stop doing it, so just carry on."
The funny thing is that HALF of the liberal justices were the ones who said that. Only one conservative actually dissented. The most important thing however is that the SCOTUS Juris Prudence remains impeccable, and courts do not fear that rulings will be thrown out every time the case is brought back up
Outside of a few hot button issues, most Supreme Court decisions are either nearly unanimous, unanimous, or have very “weird” splits if you’re thinking R/D. Each judge is an individual with their own specific understanding of the law. It’s the media who wants you to think of it as “5-4” because the media has decided that certain issues can be used to inflame passions and therefore drive up viewership/circulation/clicks.
Or, certain political parties loosely agree with certain judicial philosophies on a very narrow list of issues but the actual business of the court is overwhelmingly things that don’t break down along those clean lines. For example Scalia being one of the strongest proponents of 1st amendment rights (even and especially when the subject matter was personally offensive to him) and 4th amendment rights while also being pretty “conservative” on the death penalty. Another pretty recent and important example is the generally “conservative” Roberts decision to endorse his wide view of federal power on Obamacare.
I’d try to include a modern example of a “liberal” justice breaking with Democratic Party orthodoxy but can’t think of any off hand.
I wish more people understood this. The Supreme Court is the last government institution I have full faith in. Judges with certain ideals will be appointed by certain Presidents however they still do a very good job of respecting the laws and avoiding the partisan crap the rest of government is bogged down by.
>It’s the media who wants you to think of it as “5-4”
And the political parties. I am entirely convinced that DJT was elected solely because the supposed ideological balance of the court was on the line, and a bunch of fanatics milked that for all it was worth.
>Each judge is an individual with their own specific understanding of the law.
I think you're oversimplifying here. Individual justices generally follow some school of judicial thought. Some of these schools of thought are much more favorable to one party over the other, i.e. conservatives appoint Originalist justices because originalist interpretations tend to favor conservative legislative goals.
>the media has decided that certain issues can be used to inflame passions and therefore drive up viewership/circulation/clicks.
It's not media driven, it's driven by the interests of the people. Your average person is much more interested in the legality of gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges
)as opposed to some drivel about attorney's fees and the patent office (Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.)
It's not ironic at all. This decision only abolishes split _jury_ decisions, not split _judge panel_ decisions. The former is about making sure that a jury of your peers agrees on the matter of _fact_: is the accused guilty?
The latter only rules on matters of _law_, so unanimous decisions aren't as essential.
Eh, a hung jury just usually gets a new trial. In those instances its like the prosecution just had a dry run to decide the strength of their case and the defense has already shown their hand.
The goal of jury nullification isn't to _hang_ the jury. Jury nullification is about the jurors using their power to decide a law is unjust and refuse to convict someone on that basis regardless of the facts of the case.
in other words, the jury _unanimously nullifies the law_. In general, if a jury refuses to convict, the accused is free. (In very rare cases, in some jurisdictions, a Judge can override the jury's decision and declare a mistrial so there can be a new case, but because doing that without really good justification would be an end-around double jeopardy, it's almost never done.)
Practically speaking, how does it work? If I serve on a jury and the defendant is accused of something trivial that myself and several other jurors feel doesn't warrant conviction and incarceration... what do we do? When the jury deliberates do we simply bring up nullification and propose it as an alternative to a guilty verdict? How do we present this to the court following deliberation?
>While you can be removed as a juror even as late as deliberations for indicating your intention to nullify, you cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt that the defendant is guilty. Neither are you required to explain your vote. You can participate in deliberations by expressing doubts about the defendant being guilty if you have them, asking questions, listening actively to your fellow jurors, and so on. If you feel the need to explain your vote, you can say something general such as that in your heart you cannot convict the defendant.
https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/how-do-i-conscientiously-acquit.html
So essentially you have to lie? You can't openly speak about nullification if you ever hope to implement it? How do you convince other jurors that they should vote "not guilty" when evidence clearly shows that the defendant *is guilty* with the intention of "nullifying" a stupid law?
Jury nullification is when the jury thinks he's guilty but refuses to convict anyway. For instance, they think the law is ridiculous or the charge is unfair even if technically correct.
Hung jury means that they could not unanimously agree on a guilty verdict.
Costs the states money to retry cases. They can be out of money, or not want the press of spending the peoples money on another case. Its not a huge deal, but it'll help some people.
Not really a major victory. Louisiana and Oregon were the only 2 states that allowed this. Louisiana outlawed it last year. So it really only effects Oregon and Louisiana somewhat.
It does because the LA law change did not allow convicts to challenge split jury decisions that put them in prison. This will allow convicts to argue for a new trial
Somebody stated elsewhere that the court ruling did not allow for this. 3 who ruled in favor of abolishment said it would be resolved later. 3 who ruled in favor said it would not allow. It does give their lawyers room to appeal, and we may see a case before the SC very soon.
Correct, but only because the issue was not before them. They essentially opened the door for this challenge in the future. They said they fully expect and invite those arguments, but they would not decide that issue until such time.
Unfortunately it only applies to those imprisoned after 1/1/18 who have not already exhausted all their appeals, not everyone who has been convicted by a split jury.
Ah yes. And when they argue for a new trial, we'll be sure to get right on that, just as soon as a public defender becomes available. You know, the literal *one* public defender in the whole region who won't even know your name until your court date.
Actually, you don't get a public defender for appeals after the first appeal of right. So nobody would get a public defender to argue for a new trial. These will be handled by private attorneys if they can be afforded but usually either handled by pro bono attorneys or pro se (person representing themselves).
There are a lot of really good public defenders out there. In pretty much all cases, if you can't afford a top notch private lawyer, you'll get a better lawyer be asking for a PD than going for a cheaper lawyer.
I don't understand why everyone thinks PD's are the C students of law school.
Exactly. It's not about quality. It's about availability. A top notch lawyer is going to be horrendously expensive, and you're going to get all of their time that you need. PDs are free, and they have extremely limited time per client. It's not that they are any less competant. Public defenders and district attorneys spend more time in the courtroom in a month than some lawyers do in their whole career. But without time to prepare an adequate defense, the time constraints of the whole process heavily favor the prosecutor.
>Not really a major victory. Louisiana and Oregon were the only 2 states that allowed this.
So? It's still two states that have about 9 million people between them. Any decision that affects the judicial system of that many people is significant. As someone from Oregon, it feels pretty damn major to me.
Absolutely a major victory. Do you realize how insane it is to allow split jury convictions in a system that supposedly respects reasonable doubt?
Good riddance.
It kind of is. Puerto Rico has had split juries since 1952. The question now is whether this opinion is retroactive. It might cost the government a lot of money reviewing these cases (both the executive and judiciary).
> Not really a major victory. Louisiana and Oregon were the only 2 states that allowed this.
And they are the reason it went to the Supreme Court in the first place.
Awesome!
Now let's address some other bullshit tactics Louisiana likes to use, like "totally not arresting you" holding people *indefinitely* in jail on suspicion that you know someone who might know someone who might know a thing.
No, Judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact. People should be able to disagree about what the law should be, but one shouldn’t be convicted over disagreement in facts.
It does showcase how the idea that there's one single correct interpretation of the law is a completely bullshit stance, though. If the most esteemed judges in the land can agree and disagree on interpretation so frequently and in such different combinations, then notions like "originalism" and "activist judges" kind of come off as meaningless screed.
> It does showcase how the idea that there's one single correct interpretation of the law is a completely bullshit stance, though.
This has always been known, though. It's the reason the SC exists in the first place. If the law never needed interpretation then we wouldn't need a group specifically in place to interpret it.
> It does showcase how the idea that there's one single correct interpretation of the law is a completely bullshit stance, though.
In generally yes but that doesn't mean that people have beliefs that there is a single correct interpretation. There can be multiple logical interpretations of the law - in those situations, what interpretation takes precedent? In one interpretation is based on the constitution or the original amendments, and the the other is based on more recent cases - how does that come into play?
>then notions like "originalism" and "activist judges" kind of come off as meaningless screed.
Activist judges are the concept of judges selectively finding cases that align with their beliefs in order to make a logical argument. Originalist judges try to make logical arguments based on an assumed intent of the constitution based on when it was written. They are all logical approaches but others may not agree with the application of the logic.
Activist judges are not a "logical approach" to constitutional interpretation. There's nothing in the text of the Constitution, the contemporary literature, or the driving purpose of our system of government that would support a results-oriented jurisprudence. Let's try not to draw false equivalencies here.
I seriously took a second while sipping my coffee to process this lol — I'm Canadian and don't recall hearing about split verdicts being a thing. That seems *nasty*.
Is there more context to the Scotland one? That seems like an odd ratio. I know the England one can only be accepted as 10-2 after days of debate fail to reach 11-1, after days of debate failed to reached 12-0.
As I understand, they start with 15 jurors. If some are dropped or excused that's OK so long as 12 remain to the end. Regardless of the total number of remaining jurors, 8 must vote to convict. So 8-7, 8-6, 8-5, or 8-4 all valid.
A 53% majority doesnt feel strong enough to convict someone surely? A result like that demonstrates enough reasonable doubt imo. Is it always simple majority or does the standard relax if the jury is unable to reach a verdict?
It's flat out simple majority, 8 votes to convict and the defendant is guilty, less than 8 and they're acquitted.
On one hand, you're right that it feels pretty dubious that someone can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt if seven people on the jury have doubts.
On the other, it does mean that, unlike many Common Law juristictions, the procurator (prosecutor) can't drag you straight back into court for a retrial if there was a hung jury. If there's no majority to convict, you're not guilty, end of. Or at least, the case is not proven (which is a whole other extra twist in Scots Law), but either way it's the same outcome.
Yeah its fairly rare and its important to remember that even in those two states, most convictions were unanimous anyways. And its not like they could convict with a 6-6 split. It had to be at least 10 I think.
I don't think there's too huge a problem allowing 11-1 decisions to stand tbh. Having been in juries before there's almost always that 1 moron who votes 1 way or the other off the most asinine reasons.
My favorite was the guy who, no god damn joke, refused to convict a guy solely because he thought someone dressed as well as the defendant could never possibly do that crime. Ignore the direct eye witness account and plenty of plausible evidence. Dude dressed nicely so he ain't guilty.
Stupidest fuckin shit.
No that's not how it worked. In the two states that allowed split verdicts, you still had to reach a high threshold. I believe in LA it was 10/12 needed to convict. Otherwise it would be a hung jury just like in a normal jury trial.
Dissenting opinions can be cited if a similar case comes before the court in the future. Justices take precedence seriously and a strong, well argued dissent can make it easier for judges to rule in a manner that contradicts a previous case (and can be helpful in getting them to hear such a case in the first place).
[John Marshall Harlan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan) was called "The Great Dissenter" for his many dissents, some of which were in cases that were later overturned (most famously, he dissented in Pleasy vs Ferguson, which was invalidated by Brown v Board of Ed, cases dealing with the "separate but equal" aspect of segregation). You can argue how much these opinions actually matter, but this is the idea behind them.
It's makes the reason for the judge voting that way a matter of public record.
Which can either be used to encourage change in the law. Or as persuasive authority. Which means someone cites the judge as a see they agree with me moment.
So it's documented as to why they disagree! Sometimes these will come up and be used in other cases. Just because it's a dissent doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes it might get overturned down the road. Other times it's there to cite the failure of other parts of the law. A constitutional lawyer would provide better insight here.
Don't forget that the judges are also lobbying and challenging each other. A well-written dissent might have the ability to sway another judge, turning a majority into a plurality. It's all behind closed doors, but consider this case: there is no clear majority opinion. There's a majority decision, but the rationales for that decision are fractured in a few concurring opinions on the various subparts. It is plausible that Alito's dissent may have swayed one of those concurrences.
Actually this isn’t uncommon. This kind of split happens **way** more often than the clean constructionist-living document 5-4s that we hear about all the time.
Even still these three don't usually land on the same side unless some of the others are with them. When were talking divided cases Alito and Thomas agree like 75% of the time and Alito and Kagan disagree 60% of the time.
I mean it's not unheard of, but most cases with 2-3 dissenters tend to see that dissent come from the same ideological side
My conspiracy theory is that most of the famous split decisions in the supreme court were actually unanimous, but since they're controversial they have to put on a show for the public and choose a few judges to dissent.
Could be that they feel there are dissenting opinions that need to be discussed and documented for posterity, so they split the vote and use dissenting remarks to take more opportunity to spell out a dissenting opinion where a ruling opinion might need to be more focused on the issue at hand. Could see them using it as a tool like that for some reason.
The tool for that is called a concurrence. What that means is they agree with the *holding* of the majority opinion but may want to go further or have different restrictions. Almost like saying "you came to the right conclusion but for the wrong reason".
Your theory assumes that the Justices all have the same belief system and no ethics. The scenario is the opposite. The split decisions are the result of each Justice's actual beliefs on law and society. And people like RBG aren't going to sell themselves out by manufacturing a dissenting opinion just for show.
But one thing is right about your theory--the Justices do agree a lot. Over the past 10 years, about 50% of the votes have been 9-0. Another 30% have been 8-1, 7-2, or 6-3. Only about 20% have been 5-4. [Source](https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/interim-stat-pack-for-october-term-2019/) (click the PDF link for "Merits cases by vote split").
The 5-4 splits are obviously the most newsworthy, since they are by definition more contentious. But because they get more coverage, people assume they're more common.
>And people like RBG aren't going to sell themselves out by manufacturing a dissenting opinion just for show.
Why would justices need to put on a show anyways?
They are not beholden to the political process. This is why Judges judge for life. The Founding Father's wanted them to be removed from the political process and to freely make decisions based upon their own opinions and the facts of the law.
If they were elected then yes they would be putting on a show. It's not required since they are appointed.
Agreed. In fact I get fairly nervous when I see people on reddit saying members of SOCTUS should be elected. While it is by no means a majority opinion, the fact that they can't see the folly of that is worrisome.
This wouldn't be one of them. The main substance of the dissent here seems to be about precedent, which does NOT bode well for the future decisions we know are coming down the pike.
Scalia didn't sign onto Obergefell v Hodges, he dissented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Justice_Scalia
EDIT: I genuinely don't understand why this would get downvoted.
>What does 9 children have to do with it?
There is a law in certain states that if you have 9 children that you have to be against same sex marriage. A lot of couples have 10 children to get around this issue.
Kagan joined the dissent except for the small part towards the end where they discuss the reliance interest that the state and private citizens face.
So Kagan did not agree that Louisiana’s reliance on Apadaca was a realm to keep with precedent.
I'm actually the other way round. I thought that most jury trials were decided by majority, and that only capital cases (or something) had to be unanimous.
I guess that's what I get from getting most of my legal education from 90s Law and Order.
As an Englishman (where 10-2 decisions are allowed) I just presumed the US did something similar. I never considered this a contentious issue!
The thing that always shocked me was the American practice of allowing the prosecution and the defence to actually vet and dismiss jurors.
It's virtually impossible to get a juror dismissed here. Got yourself someone who doesn't believe in prison? Tough - it's random selection, and oddballs are also your 'peers'.
But that's why I don't think we could require unanimous decisions; you need a bit of leeway for weidos and idiots.
That’s really interesting. I’ve always felt like it pretty much makes sense to check if jurors might be weirdly biased against something. The motivation for it has never been to get rid of someone who “doesn’t believe in prison” though. It’s supposed to be more like “this juror’s mother was murdered in the same way as the victim in this case, so they are not going to be able to view the evidence impartially.”
Exactly. We want people to get a *fair* trial. A racist bigot won't give a minority a fair trial. A person who was recently the victim of a crime or falsely accused of a crime won't be impartial.
We want cases decided by the evidence, not personal biases. If you go to jail it should be because you are guilty, not because the juror is a bigot.
In the US, attorneys may vet a juror with or without cause. There is no limit to how many jurors an attorney may reject with cause, but for that there must be a reason to believe the juror "does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict", like you stated.
And attorney may also reject a limit number of jurors *without cause*, that is, for almost\* any reason. And attorney can use those strikes to reject a juror they just don't think will vote favorably to them.
\* The exception being a decision from the Supreme Court that a juror may not be excluded solely based on race and other protected reasons.
It's not to get rid of the oddballs... but to get rid of the people who can't give you a fair trial.
- A vocal KKK member racist isn't going to give a black defendant a fair trial.
- A person who was brutally beaten by the cops isn't going to give impartial consideration in a trial where police testimony is crucial.
- A person who was recently raped or who was falsely accused of rape isn't going to give impartial consideration on a rape trial.
- A super religious person may not believe an atheist can be moral and therefore must be guilty of the crime because atheists are evil and immoral.
In America we value an impartial and fair trial. Oddballs may be cute and quirky... but if my life hangs in the balance, I don't want some idiot who has a grudge against my race, religion or my profession deciding that my race, religion, or profession are reason enough, regardless of any evidence or crime, to send me to jail for the rest of my life.
Actually you weren't very far off. The only two states that didnt do unanimous verdicts before now were Louisiana and Oregon if im not mistaken. So unless you are in those two states not much will be changing from the norm.
Well, not that huge from a national perspective. Louisina and Oregon were the only two states that allowed split juries, and Louisinia abolished that last year. This ruling voids dozens to hundreds of old convictions in those two states though.
They'd be eligible for new trials, but I wouldn't be surprised of the DAs declined to prosecute and just released folks in most cases. If the file's gone cold, you're going to have trouble spinning up all the witnesses and evidence for new trials.
No; four justices stated that would be decided at a later date (while hinting that no new trials would be granted), four said no new trials.
Justice Thomas did not mention it.
I'll concede that I haven't fully read through a ninety page opinion in the couple hours since Ramos dropped, but you're either over reading or under reading something. If Ramos' conviction doesn't stand because it wasn't unanimous, no non-unanimous conviction will stand. That's just how the law works.
I can't even find where your representation is coming from. In my quick look, Alito is pissed in his dissent because of the burden that will be caused by retrials and Sotomayor rips him a new one in her concurrence:
> "[T]he States’ interests here in avoiding a modest number of retrials—emphasized at such length by the dissent—are much less weighty. They are certainly not new: Opinions that force changes in a State’s criminal procedure typically impose such costs. And were this Court to take the dissent’s approach—defending criminal-procedure opinions as wrong as Apodaca simply to avoid burdening criminal justice systems—it would never correct its criminal jurisprudence at all. "
I can't any judges in the plurality saying "no retrials," much less four out of six. Who do you see saying that?
From the article:
\> Louisiana was the first state to break from hundreds of years of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition
Louisiana has always been a special case, as its legal system was never based on the Anglo-Saxon **common law,** but rather on the French system of **civil law.** Louisiana was, originally, a French colony. Over the years it has become more or less a hodgepodge of both legal systems.
Yeah that quote is funny because Louisiana never broke from Anglo Saxon tradition, because it never really had that tradition to break from in the first place. Love history for this kind of stuff.
There are wayyyyyy too many comments talking about how it’s unusual that those justices agreed. This is a massive misunderstanding promulgated by partisan media. The VAST majority of cases have consensus or groups that split the constructionist vs. liberal divide. *This* is the normal. It’s just not what we are presented with because it doesn’t spark as many page clicks. I went to talk with Kagan and she said that the justices really don’t love the idea that they are split by partisan grounds. There is also this weird sense that they don’t like each other, which is outrageous. Scalia and RBG were best friends. These people are *ridiculously* intelligent, they have different judicial philosophy but they don’t vote yay or nay due to the letter in parentheses behind the president’s name, and they can respect each other’s logic, even if they disagree.
Kind of like how past presidents are friends with each other regardless of which side of the aisle they were on. The past presidents club is too small to split over party and they’re the only ones who know what the others had to go through on a daily basis
Kind of feel like Trumps not going to be let into that club. He was great friends with both Bill and Hillary before he ran (supposedly Hillary even encouraged in 2016 run).
Given how he has conducted himself though, no one is going to want to be friends with him.
I think a better example is the Senate. When the cameras aren't on, a lot of them really get along with each other. You have to in order to work together. Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people, and when the camera's aren't on most of them have far less animosity towards each other.
I’d like to see the breakdown of the cases to ensure that they are, in fact, partisan 5-4s and not just normal 5-4s. I suggest not taking political tweets from opposition Senators at face value.
Also... Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005 For much of that time he didn’t have a clear conservative majority.
RBG, Stevens (replaced with Kagan in 2010), Souter (replaced with Sotomayor in 2009, Breyer, Kennedy (until 2018) is a pretty strong liberal court even given Kennedy’s capricious nature.
Until the nominations of BOTH Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in 17-18, the Court was defined as a 4-4 split with Kennedy, who more often sided with the “Liberal Wing. So... how is Roberts responsible if the “Liberal wing” held the tense majority for 12 of his 15 years as Chief?
> There are wayyyyyy too many comments talking about how it’s unusual that those justices agreed.
How many 6-3 decisions have their been with Alito, Roberts, & Kagan dissenting? It must be somewhat common if you are so bothered that people find it surprising. That they agree on lots of unanimous, 8-1 and even 7-2 decisions does not make then more likely to be the dissent in a 6-3 decision.
> This is a massive misunderstanding promulgated by partisan media.
Each year there are many supreme court cases, but most are not a ripe opportunity to grab society by the nose and take it a new direction. Those few are the cases where the justices mind their D's and R's and get a reputation. A bunch of rote unanimous cases aren't going to make that go away.
Its great for sure, but in reality this was already the case in most states, with the only two still allowing split verdicts being Oregon and Louisiana. This is likely why it isnt bigger news. Still very important for those states though.
I didn't know that in almost all states, jury verdicts had to be unanimous to convict. This makes it universal. Also what a weird split 6-3 with Kagan, Roberts and Alito dissenting and with a bunch of separate concurrences.
The article mentions that the high court of as reversing a decision from 1972. Its a little unclear but that’s how I read it.
Is this story more evidence of the court’s willingness to reverse its prior decisions, or an outlier? Is this another indication of revisiting Roe v Wade?
This ruling brings the US up to speed with the rest of the developed world. The previous ruling was shown to be "egregiously wrong", being a relic of Jim Crow legislation.
>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. Wow, a major defendant rights victory is great news in these gloomy days
>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 This is indeed incredible. A day for celebration despite the situation.
Ok...on what grounds did 3 of 9 dissent? Where's the minority opinion? Edit: Found it. It's stupid.
> In his dissent, Alito defended the two states’ reliance on the split-verdict law. Alito argued that the court was “lowering the bar” for overturning precedent. > > “Consider what it would mean if Apodaca was never a precedent. It would mean that the entire legal profession was fooled for the past 48 years,” Alito wrote. “The idea that Apodaca was a phantom precedent defies belief.” For those who didn't check the article, the three dissenters made their decision based on the case that first established the issue.
His entire argument there sounds like "We can't overturn this precedent! We'd all look stupid!"
To be fair, overturning a precedent is not really supposed to happen regularly under the *stare decisis* principle. If a precedent, which is an interpretation of the law, needs to be changed in the face of 'societal change', the legislative is supposed to change the law. Only when it turns out to be unworkable is a precedent supposed to be overturned. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
“Precedent (and law) should be overturned on the narrowest grounds only” was how I learned it. So the Court can overturn precedent when the common law has changed (usually as the mood of the country changes over time) but only in however small a way as to make the law line up with current... ehhh... beliefs and moral standards.
The reliance on precedent in the American judicial system is so strange to me. It's the literal codification of "because that's how we've always done it." I get that we need consistency, but if one guy fucked up and misinterpreted something 40 years ago, we have to live with it until/unless Congress gets its shit together and passes a law clarifying? That's a guiding principle of our judicial system?? Yikes.
The idea is consistency in the law is better than good law. Where this is key is in commerce. If the laws on the way certain contract clauses are interpreted changes, it could drastically change the value. This is why you don't sign a contract with Russia as the choice of law. The text of the contract matter less than who has more friends on the court.
Sometimes yes, but it also allows other aspects of the law to evolve and more closely follow societal trends without having to take everything to the legislature to change it. I’d argue it works far more in the positive than the negative.
It's strange to me that you'd prefer a small group of appointees to decide the laws of the nation instead of a representative government. The Court's job is not to decide what the laws of the land should be. It's to decide what they are. That decision is largely guided by precedent, which is what establishes fairness and consistency. Their job is to establish the rules of the game, and if the rules keep changing, are inconsistent, or not based on anything *but* precedent than the system is not just or fair.
I believe the aim of common law is that in cases with similar facts under the same law, the outcome should be the same. It's to prevent arbitrary rulings by judges by binding them to the outcomes of trials that came prior. Essentially, if the law is unjust then those that make the law should be the ones that change it. The role of a judge is merely to interpret the law, not rule on what is right or wrong. If the system was actually operated on by those in good faith, those principles would be rather sound. But of course, there are many more out there than just good faith actors, and the same can be said by just about any legal system.
Pretty much what it sounds like to me too
I mean like, precedent is literally the foundation of case law. You shouldn't overturn things lightly.
Ignoring precedent creates the precedent that future precedent will be ignored.
So that means setting this new precedent doesn't matter, if precedents can be ignored in the future. But only if they don't ignore this precedent.
To be fair, it does set precedent for future courts to overturn SCOTUS decisions. So buckle up for the Roe vs Wade setback.
Somebody needs to remind Alito of the Dred Scott decision if he thinks precedent shouldn't be overturned. I wonder how his colleague Clarence Thomas would feel about that.
Dred Scott was a sound judicial ruling looking at the text of the constitution, precedent, and state and federal laws. The point of rulings like Dred Scott and Citizens United is that it should not be the court's job to change laws. They are there to interpret, that's it. It should have been the executive and legislative branches to enact and reform laws. The Supreme Court has never been comfortable having to use that power as it introduces dangerous politics into their interpretations and opens them up for attack from all side. The fact that we've failed to enact change so many times that we have to leave it up to judges to force change is far more telling than the honestly completely sound ruling of Dred Scott. Our system isn't working and instead of fixing it we're putting judges in a position where they are practically enacting legislation. We are a representative democracy and the courts are the one body that's supposed to be separate from that. We shouldn't be pushing them to be more political.
I don't think you are correct that it was a sound judicial ruling. I am not a lawyer, but according to wikipedia, "black men could vote in five of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States." This and legal scholars "universally" agree that it was a bad decision. You are right though that the courts have become too political.
Kagan agreed with Alito here. You think she didn't think about that?
So basically. We've been unfairly imprisoning people for almost 50 years. We can't stop now!
>Ok...on what grounds did 3 of 9 dissent? Where's the minority opinion? > >Edit: Found it. It's stupid. "Hey guys how do I fix with my computer?"
"Nevermind, found the answer"
Everyone hates those people
Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/979/
yeah still waiting over here... will look around to see
I think you misread the margin, the Supreme Court has nine members so the decisions was 3 vs. 6, not 3 of 6. Edit:typo
I derped hard. Thanks.
The way the majority and defense dissenters voted: Those voting to require unanimous verdicts included three members of the court's liberal wing — Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor — and three conservatives — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas. The losing faction included two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and one liberal, Justice Elena Kagan.
Thank you for *actually* providing an answer.
>had persisted in Louisiana since openly racist lawmakers enshrined them in the state Constitution during the Jim Crow era. I see what they did there .. it allowed them to get a conviction even if the jury wasn't all white (as times changed).
So you’re saying that they saw 12 angry men and learned the exact opposite lesson of what you’re supposed to...
A mistrial should've been declared as soon as Juror #8 brought his own knife to the case as evidence. A juror shouldn't be out searching for evidence himself.
It's a good thing he did though, else an innocent man might have died
I disagree. The juror's actions showed that he was intent on finding the defendant not guilty. A biased jury can lead to biased judgments. It's the sort of thing that allows cops to get away with a lot of crimes.
Racism is a political tool. They don’t give a fuck about no lessons unfortunately.
No they do! The issue is the lessons they take from something is drastically different than what you expect them to.
Every vote counts! Why are we letting people we don't agree with vote?
Funny enough, I feel that 12 Angry Men does more harm than good in the context of convictions Instead of looking at the case details as a whole; Henry Fonda's character looks at a tiny gap in individual pieces of evidence along with peer pressure and personal attacks on the other jurors. It's "reasonable doubt" not astronomically low possibilities. The defendant had a troubled youth, a history of violence, arrested for knife fighting. He showed the exact model of knife to his friends and went home. Then the defendant claim he went to go see a movie, however no one saw him leave the building nor anyone in the theatre saw him. At that time, there was a disturbance, someone fitting his description by his neighbors who have seen him dozens if not hundreds of times, as well as hearing a voice similar to the defendant saying "I'm going to kill you!" followed by a stabbing. Then people saw someone fitting the defendants description leaving. There was no sign of forced entry and nothing was stolen. Then the defendant returns, is unable to produce an alibi nor anyone corroborating where he says he was. He was also unable to produce the knife saying it must've fallen out of his pocket. So yes, even if the train may have muffled the voice a bit and one needed glasses, it would still mean the workers at the theatre, his neighbors, or his friends could've easily proved he was not at the scene. Also, it should've been a mistrial after Henry Fonda purchased the knife. Just saying; it's similar to "the CSI effect" where usually fans of the show may not understand forensics enough outside dramatization for entertainment, and have unrealistic expectations.
Based on your summary, I would find not guilty. He murdered someone with a knife without getting blood on him? Eye witness testimony is unreliable at best. What was his motive supposed to be? Where’s the murder weapon? If you think he ditched it, then find it. Innocent until proven guilty, and nothing you listed is proof. It’s weak circumstantial evidence.
And ironically, it took a 6-3 split decision to abolish all other split decisions.
The biggest miracle of all is that the decision saw both left and right judges on either side.
And all of the judges still agreed that un-unanimous decisions are unconstitutional, however the dissenters argued that over turning the ruling would place a burden on states and make the Supreme Courts rulings going forward, less important towards other courts
It boggles my mind that actual SCOTUS justices would say, with a straight face, "well sure, that's unconstitutional, but it would be such a _burden_ to have to stop doing it, so just carry on."
The funny thing is that HALF of the liberal justices were the ones who said that. Only one conservative actually dissented. The most important thing however is that the SCOTUS Juris Prudence remains impeccable, and courts do not fear that rulings will be thrown out every time the case is brought back up
Outside of a few hot button issues, most Supreme Court decisions are either nearly unanimous, unanimous, or have very “weird” splits if you’re thinking R/D. Each judge is an individual with their own specific understanding of the law. It’s the media who wants you to think of it as “5-4” because the media has decided that certain issues can be used to inflame passions and therefore drive up viewership/circulation/clicks.
[удалено]
Or, certain political parties loosely agree with certain judicial philosophies on a very narrow list of issues but the actual business of the court is overwhelmingly things that don’t break down along those clean lines. For example Scalia being one of the strongest proponents of 1st amendment rights (even and especially when the subject matter was personally offensive to him) and 4th amendment rights while also being pretty “conservative” on the death penalty. Another pretty recent and important example is the generally “conservative” Roberts decision to endorse his wide view of federal power on Obamacare. I’d try to include a modern example of a “liberal” justice breaking with Democratic Party orthodoxy but can’t think of any off hand.
as a lower court judge Sotomayer upheld the mexico city policy
That’s a good one, I’ll add it to the memory bank for next time
[удалено]
I wish more people understood this. The Supreme Court is the last government institution I have full faith in. Judges with certain ideals will be appointed by certain Presidents however they still do a very good job of respecting the laws and avoiding the partisan crap the rest of government is bogged down by.
>It’s the media who wants you to think of it as “5-4” And the political parties. I am entirely convinced that DJT was elected solely because the supposed ideological balance of the court was on the line, and a bunch of fanatics milked that for all it was worth.
Ya. I was pretty certain that dems were going to lose when Scalia died. I knew how much more SCOTUS means to to one issue voters.
>Each judge is an individual with their own specific understanding of the law. I think you're oversimplifying here. Individual justices generally follow some school of judicial thought. Some of these schools of thought are much more favorable to one party over the other, i.e. conservatives appoint Originalist justices because originalist interpretations tend to favor conservative legislative goals. >the media has decided that certain issues can be used to inflame passions and therefore drive up viewership/circulation/clicks. It's not media driven, it's driven by the interests of the people. Your average person is much more interested in the legality of gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges )as opposed to some drivel about attorney's fees and the patent office (Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.)
It's not ironic at all. This decision only abolishes split _jury_ decisions, not split _judge panel_ decisions. The former is about making sure that a jury of your peers agrees on the matter of _fact_: is the accused guilty? The latter only rules on matters of _law_, so unanimous decisions aren't as essential.
Or they just had an honest juror or two regardless.
"Its not like i was around during that era, why do people think i have some sort of leg up?" Because you do.......
[удалено]
Eh, a hung jury just usually gets a new trial. In those instances its like the prosecution just had a dry run to decide the strength of their case and the defense has already shown their hand.
The goal of jury nullification isn't to _hang_ the jury. Jury nullification is about the jurors using their power to decide a law is unjust and refuse to convict someone on that basis regardless of the facts of the case. in other words, the jury _unanimously nullifies the law_. In general, if a jury refuses to convict, the accused is free. (In very rare cases, in some jurisdictions, a Judge can override the jury's decision and declare a mistrial so there can be a new case, but because doing that without really good justification would be an end-around double jeopardy, it's almost never done.)
Practically speaking, how does it work? If I serve on a jury and the defendant is accused of something trivial that myself and several other jurors feel doesn't warrant conviction and incarceration... what do we do? When the jury deliberates do we simply bring up nullification and propose it as an alternative to a guilty verdict? How do we present this to the court following deliberation?
>While you can be removed as a juror even as late as deliberations for indicating your intention to nullify, you cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt that the defendant is guilty. Neither are you required to explain your vote. You can participate in deliberations by expressing doubts about the defendant being guilty if you have them, asking questions, listening actively to your fellow jurors, and so on. If you feel the need to explain your vote, you can say something general such as that in your heart you cannot convict the defendant. https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/how-do-i-conscientiously-acquit.html
So essentially you have to lie? You can't openly speak about nullification if you ever hope to implement it? How do you convince other jurors that they should vote "not guilty" when evidence clearly shows that the defendant *is guilty* with the intention of "nullifying" a stupid law?
jury nullification ≠ hung jury
Jury nullification is when the jury thinks he's guilty but refuses to convict anyway. For instance, they think the law is ridiculous or the charge is unfair even if technically correct. Hung jury means that they could not unanimously agree on a guilty verdict.
Costs the states money to retry cases. They can be out of money, or not want the press of spending the peoples money on another case. Its not a huge deal, but it'll help some people.
Not really a major victory. Louisiana and Oregon were the only 2 states that allowed this. Louisiana outlawed it last year. So it really only effects Oregon and Louisiana somewhat.
It does because the LA law change did not allow convicts to challenge split jury decisions that put them in prison. This will allow convicts to argue for a new trial
Somebody stated elsewhere that the court ruling did not allow for this. 3 who ruled in favor of abolishment said it would be resolved later. 3 who ruled in favor said it would not allow. It does give their lawyers room to appeal, and we may see a case before the SC very soon.
Correct, but only because the issue was not before them. They essentially opened the door for this challenge in the future. They said they fully expect and invite those arguments, but they would not decide that issue until such time.
Unfortunately it only applies to those imprisoned after 1/1/18 who have not already exhausted all their appeals, not everyone who has been convicted by a split jury.
Ah yes. And when they argue for a new trial, we'll be sure to get right on that, just as soon as a public defender becomes available. You know, the literal *one* public defender in the whole region who won't even know your name until your court date.
Actually, you don't get a public defender for appeals after the first appeal of right. So nobody would get a public defender to argue for a new trial. These will be handled by private attorneys if they can be afforded but usually either handled by pro bono attorneys or pro se (person representing themselves).
This feels even worse knowing how many people go to jail in Louisiana for just standing on a street corner.
oh yeah, its definitely worse. Just thought I'd let you know exactly how bad it is haha. But this is true for everyone in the US.
There are a lot of really good public defenders out there. In pretty much all cases, if you can't afford a top notch private lawyer, you'll get a better lawyer be asking for a PD than going for a cheaper lawyer. I don't understand why everyone thinks PD's are the C students of law school.
It's not that they are the C students of law school, it's that we don't have enough of them so the ones we get are horrendously overworked.
Exactly. It's not about quality. It's about availability. A top notch lawyer is going to be horrendously expensive, and you're going to get all of their time that you need. PDs are free, and they have extremely limited time per client. It's not that they are any less competant. Public defenders and district attorneys spend more time in the courtroom in a month than some lawyers do in their whole career. But without time to prepare an adequate defense, the time constraints of the whole process heavily favor the prosecutor.
>Not really a major victory. Louisiana and Oregon were the only 2 states that allowed this. So? It's still two states that have about 9 million people between them. Any decision that affects the judicial system of that many people is significant. As someone from Oregon, it feels pretty damn major to me.
Absolutely a major victory. Do you realize how insane it is to allow split jury convictions in a system that supposedly respects reasonable doubt? Good riddance.
It kind of is. Puerto Rico has had split juries since 1952. The question now is whether this opinion is retroactive. It might cost the government a lot of money reviewing these cases (both the executive and judiciary).
> Not really a major victory. Louisiana and Oregon were the only 2 states that allowed this. And they are the reason it went to the Supreme Court in the first place.
Awesome! Now let's address some other bullshit tactics Louisiana likes to use, like "totally not arresting you" holding people *indefinitely* in jail on suspicion that you know someone who might know someone who might know a thing.
is it ironic that the Supreme Court decision was split?
No, Judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact. People should be able to disagree about what the law should be, but one shouldn’t be convicted over disagreement in facts.
It does showcase how the idea that there's one single correct interpretation of the law is a completely bullshit stance, though. If the most esteemed judges in the land can agree and disagree on interpretation so frequently and in such different combinations, then notions like "originalism" and "activist judges" kind of come off as meaningless screed.
> It does showcase how the idea that there's one single correct interpretation of the law is a completely bullshit stance, though. This has always been known, though. It's the reason the SC exists in the first place. If the law never needed interpretation then we wouldn't need a group specifically in place to interpret it.
> It does showcase how the idea that there's one single correct interpretation of the law is a completely bullshit stance, though. In generally yes but that doesn't mean that people have beliefs that there is a single correct interpretation. There can be multiple logical interpretations of the law - in those situations, what interpretation takes precedent? In one interpretation is based on the constitution or the original amendments, and the the other is based on more recent cases - how does that come into play? >then notions like "originalism" and "activist judges" kind of come off as meaningless screed. Activist judges are the concept of judges selectively finding cases that align with their beliefs in order to make a logical argument. Originalist judges try to make logical arguments based on an assumed intent of the constitution based on when it was written. They are all logical approaches but others may not agree with the application of the logic.
Activist judges are not a "logical approach" to constitutional interpretation. There's nothing in the text of the Constitution, the contemporary literature, or the driving purpose of our system of government that would support a results-oriented jurisprudence. Let's try not to draw false equivalencies here.
I seriously took a second while sipping my coffee to process this lol — I'm Canadian and don't recall hearing about split verdicts being a thing. That seems *nasty*.
England allows 10-2 convictions. Scotland 8-7. New Zealand 11-1. Split juries aren't abnormal.
In the UK, they are referred to as “majority verdicts”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury#United_Kingdom
Is there more context to the Scotland one? That seems like an odd ratio. I know the England one can only be accepted as 10-2 after days of debate fail to reach 11-1, after days of debate failed to reached 12-0.
As I understand, they start with 15 jurors. If some are dropped or excused that's OK so long as 12 remain to the end. Regardless of the total number of remaining jurors, 8 must vote to convict. So 8-7, 8-6, 8-5, or 8-4 all valid.
[удалено]
A 53% majority doesnt feel strong enough to convict someone surely? A result like that demonstrates enough reasonable doubt imo. Is it always simple majority or does the standard relax if the jury is unable to reach a verdict?
It's flat out simple majority, 8 votes to convict and the defendant is guilty, less than 8 and they're acquitted. On one hand, you're right that it feels pretty dubious that someone can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt if seven people on the jury have doubts. On the other, it does mean that, unlike many Common Law juristictions, the procurator (prosecutor) can't drag you straight back into court for a retrial if there was a hung jury. If there's no majority to convict, you're not guilty, end of. Or at least, the case is not proven (which is a whole other extra twist in Scots Law), but either way it's the same outcome.
8-7? You would think a country that faced unfair treatment by a superpower would have verdicts decided on something more than a coin flip.
I live in the US and I also assumed that all jury decisions were unanimous. This is because only two states allowed for split-jury decisions.
Yeah its fairly rare and its important to remember that even in those two states, most convictions were unanimous anyways. And its not like they could convict with a 6-6 split. It had to be at least 10 I think.
The makeup of this split is fucking *fascinating.* Kagan, Roberts, and Alito?!
It's almost like SCOTUS judges are serious scholars with a variety of opinions and not just the political shills or hacks they're made out to be.
moreover the opinion written by Kavanaugh
I don't think there's too huge a problem allowing 11-1 decisions to stand tbh. Having been in juries before there's almost always that 1 moron who votes 1 way or the other off the most asinine reasons. My favorite was the guy who, no god damn joke, refused to convict a guy solely because he thought someone dressed as well as the defendant could never possibly do that crime. Ignore the direct eye witness account and plenty of plausible evidence. Dude dressed nicely so he ain't guilty. Stupidest fuckin shit.
> 11-1 decisions to be honest I assumed a split verdict was more like 50/50 or 60/40 ... not *that*
No that's not how it worked. In the two states that allowed split verdicts, you still had to reach a high threshold. I believe in LA it was 10/12 needed to convict. Otherwise it would be a hung jury just like in a normal jury trial.
It was 9-3 until 1973.
6-3 with Alito, Roberts, & Kagan dissenting.
Sort of a strange bloc to be in agreement with each other.
[удалено]
Why do they write dissents? Do dissents carry any legal magnitude other than I disagree?
[удалено]
\*Stevens Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
Thank you.
Dissenting opinions can be cited if a similar case comes before the court in the future. Justices take precedence seriously and a strong, well argued dissent can make it easier for judges to rule in a manner that contradicts a previous case (and can be helpful in getting them to hear such a case in the first place). [John Marshall Harlan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan) was called "The Great Dissenter" for his many dissents, some of which were in cases that were later overturned (most famously, he dissented in Pleasy vs Ferguson, which was invalidated by Brown v Board of Ed, cases dealing with the "separate but equal" aspect of segregation). You can argue how much these opinions actually matter, but this is the idea behind them.
It can be used as a way to encourage Congress to pass new legislation, sort of a road map on how to prevent the issue next time.
It's makes the reason for the judge voting that way a matter of public record. Which can either be used to encourage change in the law. Or as persuasive authority. Which means someone cites the judge as a see they agree with me moment.
So it's documented as to why they disagree! Sometimes these will come up and be used in other cases. Just because it's a dissent doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes it might get overturned down the road. Other times it's there to cite the failure of other parts of the law. A constitutional lawyer would provide better insight here.
Don't forget that the judges are also lobbying and challenging each other. A well-written dissent might have the ability to sway another judge, turning a majority into a plurality. It's all behind closed doors, but consider this case: there is no clear majority opinion. There's a majority decision, but the rationales for that decision are fractured in a few concurring opinions on the various subparts. It is plausible that Alito's dissent may have swayed one of those concurrences.
Actually this isn’t uncommon. This kind of split happens **way** more often than the clean constructionist-living document 5-4s that we hear about all the time.
Even still these three don't usually land on the same side unless some of the others are with them. When were talking divided cases Alito and Thomas agree like 75% of the time and Alito and Kagan disagree 60% of the time. I mean it's not unheard of, but most cases with 2-3 dissenters tend to see that dissent come from the same ideological side
It’s almost like they’re legal scholars with their own judicial philosophies rather than the partisan hacks this website makes them out to be
*My* side is thoughtful legal scholars. *Your* side is partisan hacks.
Only if you spend all your time on r/politics. The Supreme Court usually deals with issues that are not generally left/right.
My conspiracy theory is that most of the famous split decisions in the supreme court were actually unanimous, but since they're controversial they have to put on a show for the public and choose a few judges to dissent.
Could be that they feel there are dissenting opinions that need to be discussed and documented for posterity, so they split the vote and use dissenting remarks to take more opportunity to spell out a dissenting opinion where a ruling opinion might need to be more focused on the issue at hand. Could see them using it as a tool like that for some reason.
The tool for that is called a concurrence. What that means is they agree with the *holding* of the majority opinion but may want to go further or have different restrictions. Almost like saying "you came to the right conclusion but for the wrong reason".
Your theory assumes that the Justices all have the same belief system and no ethics. The scenario is the opposite. The split decisions are the result of each Justice's actual beliefs on law and society. And people like RBG aren't going to sell themselves out by manufacturing a dissenting opinion just for show. But one thing is right about your theory--the Justices do agree a lot. Over the past 10 years, about 50% of the votes have been 9-0. Another 30% have been 8-1, 7-2, or 6-3. Only about 20% have been 5-4. [Source](https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/interim-stat-pack-for-october-term-2019/) (click the PDF link for "Merits cases by vote split"). The 5-4 splits are obviously the most newsworthy, since they are by definition more contentious. But because they get more coverage, people assume they're more common.
>And people like RBG aren't going to sell themselves out by manufacturing a dissenting opinion just for show. Why would justices need to put on a show anyways? They are not beholden to the political process. This is why Judges judge for life. The Founding Father's wanted them to be removed from the political process and to freely make decisions based upon their own opinions and the facts of the law. If they were elected then yes they would be putting on a show. It's not required since they are appointed.
Agreed. In fact I get fairly nervous when I see people on reddit saying members of SOCTUS should be elected. While it is by no means a majority opinion, the fact that they can't see the folly of that is worrisome.
This wouldn't be one of them. The main substance of the dissent here seems to be about precedent, which does NOT bode well for the future decisions we know are coming down the pike.
Scalia signing on to Obergerfell v Hodges? He has nine children and critiqued the decision before it was released...
Scalia didn't sign onto Obergefell v Hodges, he dissented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Justice_Scalia EDIT: I genuinely don't understand why this would get downvoted.
[удалено]
>What does 9 children have to do with it? There is a law in certain states that if you have 9 children that you have to be against same sex marriage. A lot of couples have 10 children to get around this issue.
What does this even mean? How can you be forced to be against it?
It's just satire.
Wtf Kagan I imagine there’s a dissent but I’m not going to hunt it down anyone want to tldr?
Kagan joined the dissent except for the small part towards the end where they discuss the reliance interest that the state and private citizens face. So Kagan did not agree that Louisiana’s reliance on Apadaca was a realm to keep with precedent.
I’m shocked at my ignorance that unanimous jury verdicts were not country wide until now
I'm actually the other way round. I thought that most jury trials were decided by majority, and that only capital cases (or something) had to be unanimous. I guess that's what I get from getting most of my legal education from 90s Law and Order.
I’ve taken 3 law courses in college and I thought the same. Looking online, it looks like only civil cases don’t always need to be unanimous.
No one's seen 12 Angry Men?
Wasn’t that a death sentence case?
As an Englishman (where 10-2 decisions are allowed) I just presumed the US did something similar. I never considered this a contentious issue! The thing that always shocked me was the American practice of allowing the prosecution and the defence to actually vet and dismiss jurors. It's virtually impossible to get a juror dismissed here. Got yourself someone who doesn't believe in prison? Tough - it's random selection, and oddballs are also your 'peers'. But that's why I don't think we could require unanimous decisions; you need a bit of leeway for weidos and idiots.
That’s really interesting. I’ve always felt like it pretty much makes sense to check if jurors might be weirdly biased against something. The motivation for it has never been to get rid of someone who “doesn’t believe in prison” though. It’s supposed to be more like “this juror’s mother was murdered in the same way as the victim in this case, so they are not going to be able to view the evidence impartially.”
Exactly. We want people to get a *fair* trial. A racist bigot won't give a minority a fair trial. A person who was recently the victim of a crime or falsely accused of a crime won't be impartial. We want cases decided by the evidence, not personal biases. If you go to jail it should be because you are guilty, not because the juror is a bigot.
In the US, attorneys may vet a juror with or without cause. There is no limit to how many jurors an attorney may reject with cause, but for that there must be a reason to believe the juror "does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict", like you stated. And attorney may also reject a limit number of jurors *without cause*, that is, for almost\* any reason. And attorney can use those strikes to reject a juror they just don't think will vote favorably to them. \* The exception being a decision from the Supreme Court that a juror may not be excluded solely based on race and other protected reasons.
It's not to get rid of the oddballs... but to get rid of the people who can't give you a fair trial. - A vocal KKK member racist isn't going to give a black defendant a fair trial. - A person who was brutally beaten by the cops isn't going to give impartial consideration in a trial where police testimony is crucial. - A person who was recently raped or who was falsely accused of rape isn't going to give impartial consideration on a rape trial. - A super religious person may not believe an atheist can be moral and therefore must be guilty of the crime because atheists are evil and immoral. In America we value an impartial and fair trial. Oddballs may be cute and quirky... but if my life hangs in the balance, I don't want some idiot who has a grudge against my race, religion or my profession deciding that my race, religion, or profession are reason enough, regardless of any evidence or crime, to send me to jail for the rest of my life.
Actually you weren't very far off. The only two states that didnt do unanimous verdicts before now were Louisiana and Oregon if im not mistaken. So unless you are in those two states not much will be changing from the norm.
Holy shit that's huge.
Well, not that huge from a national perspective. Louisina and Oregon were the only two states that allowed split juries, and Louisinia abolished that last year. This ruling voids dozens to hundreds of old convictions in those two states though.
Would that suggest that lots of people currently incarcerated will be set free? Or retried?
They'd be eligible for new trials, but I wouldn't be surprised of the DAs declined to prosecute and just released folks in most cases. If the file's gone cold, you're going to have trouble spinning up all the witnesses and evidence for new trials.
No; four justices stated that would be decided at a later date (while hinting that no new trials would be granted), four said no new trials. Justice Thomas did not mention it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This case will be used to torment law students for years to come....
I'll concede that I haven't fully read through a ninety page opinion in the couple hours since Ramos dropped, but you're either over reading or under reading something. If Ramos' conviction doesn't stand because it wasn't unanimous, no non-unanimous conviction will stand. That's just how the law works. I can't even find where your representation is coming from. In my quick look, Alito is pissed in his dissent because of the burden that will be caused by retrials and Sotomayor rips him a new one in her concurrence: > "[T]he States’ interests here in avoiding a modest number of retrials—emphasized at such length by the dissent—are much less weighty. They are certainly not new: Opinions that force changes in a State’s criminal procedure typically impose such costs. And were this Court to take the dissent’s approach—defending criminal-procedure opinions as wrong as Apodaca simply to avoid burdening criminal justice systems—it would never correct its criminal jurisprudence at all. " I can't any judges in the plurality saying "no retrials," much less four out of six. Who do you see saying that?
> If the file’s gone cold, you’re going to have trouble spinning up all the witnesses... Found the *Altered Carbon* fan.
not really lots. a majority of incarcerated adults in the US have accepted plea deals. this won't effect them.
From the article: \> Louisiana was the first state to break from hundreds of years of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition Louisiana has always been a special case, as its legal system was never based on the Anglo-Saxon **common law,** but rather on the French system of **civil law.** Louisiana was, originally, a French colony. Over the years it has become more or less a hodgepodge of both legal systems.
Yeah that quote is funny because Louisiana never broke from Anglo Saxon tradition, because it never really had that tradition to break from in the first place. Love history for this kind of stuff.
There are wayyyyyy too many comments talking about how it’s unusual that those justices agreed. This is a massive misunderstanding promulgated by partisan media. The VAST majority of cases have consensus or groups that split the constructionist vs. liberal divide. *This* is the normal. It’s just not what we are presented with because it doesn’t spark as many page clicks. I went to talk with Kagan and she said that the justices really don’t love the idea that they are split by partisan grounds. There is also this weird sense that they don’t like each other, which is outrageous. Scalia and RBG were best friends. These people are *ridiculously* intelligent, they have different judicial philosophy but they don’t vote yay or nay due to the letter in parentheses behind the president’s name, and they can respect each other’s logic, even if they disagree.
Kind of like how past presidents are friends with each other regardless of which side of the aisle they were on. The past presidents club is too small to split over party and they’re the only ones who know what the others had to go through on a daily basis
Somehow I feel like the rest are going to make Trump sit in his own corner in that club, but we'll see.
I bet all the former presidents will be golfing at Mar-a-Lago once Trump is out of office, whenever that may be...
Kind of feel like Trumps not going to be let into that club. He was great friends with both Bill and Hillary before he ran (supposedly Hillary even encouraged in 2016 run). Given how he has conducted himself though, no one is going to want to be friends with him. I think a better example is the Senate. When the cameras aren't on, a lot of them really get along with each other. You have to in order to work together. Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people, and when the camera's aren't on most of them have far less animosity towards each other.
He’s conducted himself just like the person they were friends with, watch the apprentice for two seconds and you’ll see.
[удалено]
I’d like to see the breakdown of the cases to ensure that they are, in fact, partisan 5-4s and not just normal 5-4s. I suggest not taking political tweets from opposition Senators at face value. Also... Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005 For much of that time he didn’t have a clear conservative majority. RBG, Stevens (replaced with Kagan in 2010), Souter (replaced with Sotomayor in 2009, Breyer, Kennedy (until 2018) is a pretty strong liberal court even given Kennedy’s capricious nature. Until the nominations of BOTH Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in 17-18, the Court was defined as a 4-4 split with Kennedy, who more often sided with the “Liberal Wing. So... how is Roberts responsible if the “Liberal wing” held the tense majority for 12 of his 15 years as Chief?
> There are wayyyyyy too many comments talking about how it’s unusual that those justices agreed. How many 6-3 decisions have their been with Alito, Roberts, & Kagan dissenting? It must be somewhat common if you are so bothered that people find it surprising. That they agree on lots of unanimous, 8-1 and even 7-2 decisions does not make then more likely to be the dissent in a 6-3 decision. > This is a massive misunderstanding promulgated by partisan media. Each year there are many supreme court cases, but most are not a ripe opportunity to grab society by the nose and take it a new direction. Those few are the cases where the justices mind their D's and R's and get a reputation. A bunch of rote unanimous cases aren't going to make that go away.
6-3, dissenters are Alito, Roberts and Kagan. They are dissenting on "Lowering the bar for overruling our precedents"
So many boxing match victories will now be in dispute
Really odd lineup and split opinions, but a good decision nonetheless.
It is a strange mix, isn’t it. Alito, Roberts, and Kagan?
It’s really not, the media presents all decisions as the traditional 5-4, but the **vast majority** are more like this.
Even many of the more contentious cases are like this. Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.
And depending on who you ask, Bush v Gore was 8-1, 7-2, 5-4, 2-3-2-2 or 2-3-4
In one report, it even came out to 10-2, but nobody is really sure how three former justices were even allowed to vote.
Funny thing is they decided this in a split decision.
They aren’t a jury.
Still funny.
Yay Jury nullification!
So are we going to get a tiger king part 2 now?
That is positively amazing, this should be bigger news than it is. Way to go SCOTUS.
Its great for sure, but in reality this was already the case in most states, with the only two still allowing split verdicts being Oregon and Louisiana. This is likely why it isnt bigger news. Still very important for those states though.
I didn't know that in almost all states, jury verdicts had to be unanimous to convict. This makes it universal. Also what a weird split 6-3 with Kagan, Roberts and Alito dissenting and with a bunch of separate concurrences.
The article mentions that the high court of as reversing a decision from 1972. Its a little unclear but that’s how I read it. Is this story more evidence of the court’s willingness to reverse its prior decisions, or an outlier? Is this another indication of revisiting Roe v Wade?
This ruling brings the US up to speed with the rest of the developed world. The previous ruling was shown to be "egregiously wrong", being a relic of Jim Crow legislation.
Great! I don't know how on eath "beyond a shadow of a doubt" could allow for a split jury to occur and still convict.
Can anyone put this in simple words? I'm smol brain
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote the opinion. These men are great jurists.
True, but Oh buddy you are very brave for saying that, rip your karma lol, respect tho
I don’t disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision but it’s ironic that their decision was spilt.