By a split decision in a case coming out of Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court ruled non-unanimous jury convictions are unconstitutional. Ruling in favor of the decision was Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Brett Kavanaugh. Dissenting was Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and in part by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the decision but did not join the opinion written by Justice Gorsuch.
The case arose to the Supreme Court after Evangeline Ernesto was convicted of murder by a 10-2 decision here in Louisiana in 2016. Since then, Louisiana voters passed a constitutional amendment mandating unanimous juries for criminal convictions.
Responding to the court’s decision was Evangeline Parish District Attorney Trent Brignac, who, in a statement, said the following:
“After reading the decision in Ramos v. Louisiana and discussing it with several legal authorities across the state, it appears the Ramos decision will only apply to cases that are still on appeal in which the conviction was not by a unanimous jury verdict.”
“Based upon our initial review of Evangeline Parish convictions, we believe there will be very few convictions affected by the Ramos decision.
However, because the decision is very lengthy and subject to different legal interpretations, it will not be surprising to have other defendants who have been convicted by non-unanimous jury verdicts to request a new trial under Ramos. If a new trial is requested, the issue will be heard by district judges and ultimately be decided by the Louisiana Appellate Court System.”
Oregon is now the only state in the union to still allow criminal convictions on split verdicts.
Image
Tony Marks
Editor