SCOTUS: All Serious Criminal Convictions Require Unanimous Jury Vote

The Supreme Court has overturned a 1972 ruling, extending the Sixth Amendment's requirement for unanimous jury verdicts in federal criminal trials to state trials. This decision affects Louisiana and Oregon, the only states allowing non-unanimous convictions. The ruling was influenced by the case of Evangelisto Ramos, convicted by a 10-2 jury vote in Louisiana. The court highlighted the racial implications of non-unanimous verdicts, noting their historical use to suppress minority jurors' influence. Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized the Sixth Amendment's call for impartial jury trials, underscoring the necessity of unanimous verdicts.

What was the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday regarding non-unanimous convictions?

What arguments did Evangelisto Ramos present regarding his conviction?

How did the Supreme Court's opinion address the historical context of non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana?

What was the purpose of the 1898 convention that endorsed non-unanimous verdicts according to the Supreme Court's opinion?

How did Justice Neil Gorsuch interpret the Sixth Amendment in relation to jury verdicts?