WFB:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the constitutional rule requiring unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials also applies to the states, overturning a decades-old decision that allowed a few states to convict defendants by a supermajority vote.
In federal courts and the overwhelming majority of states, criminal convictions require a unanimous jury vote. Under a quirk 1972 decision, juries in state courts were allowed to convict defendants by a supermajority. Louisiana allowed convictions on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote until 2018. Oregon is the last state to allow jury convictions by a supermajority.
Six justices supported the bottom-line outcome. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a fractured majority opinion, while three justices issued their own separate opinions. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.
Monday’s opinions featured a continuing debate over the force of precedent. That discussion looms large over the High Court, as retired justice Anthony Kennedy’s departure called the continued validity of landmark decisions on social issues into question. Justice Brett Kavanaugh handed down a 20-page concurrence on the Court’s relationship to prior holdings, his first major writing on the subject since his confirmation. The dissent, which accused the majority of giving past decisions “rough treatment,” drew a somewhat unusual coalition. Though Alito and Kagan do not often make common cause in closely divided cases, Kagan has made adherence to precedent a master principle of her legal philosophy. All told, Monday’s decision was something of a proxy for disputes over basic principles. read more
does this overturn the serious crime of the Obamacare vote?
So…all twelve angry men have to vote guilty or there’s no conviction?
Read up on jury nullification. Put it into action to stop unjust prosecutions. Fight the deep state. It’s our right and duty to nullify unjust laws.
Kagan has made adherence to precedent a master principle of her legal philosophy only because of abortion.
Anything else, and she’s vote to serve her politics.
good luck getting all nine to stop baby-killing
Exactly. Jury nullification worked for the O.J. jury. If I am ever on a jury, the police and state are AUTOMATICALLY given no benefit of the doubt because there is incentives to close cases with any warm body they can find, they lie for each other, the crime labs are corrupt (the FBI crime lab a few years back admitted their procedures were incorrect for decades) and the the state has unlimited resources while the citizen has to spend big money to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.
-Marijuana charges, not guilty.
-Beating an animal to death for attacking someone’s children–not guilty.
-Police caught twisting arms, punching, kicking, choking, beating people? guilty.
Never side with the state unless it’s overwhelming evidence, and that’s where a unanimous jury is needed.
Thank you and Amen.
“… the constitutional rule requiring unanimous jury verdicts …”
Would someone point out the Article, Section, and Paragraph, please.
Thank you.
izlamo delenda est …
^^^ it’s probably in Amendment 0, the same one that allows some hired hand at the Health Dept to declare all the rest of the Constitution is ‘suspended’ indefinitely.
Then, by the same Constitutional rule, the Supremes bullshit is null and void unless unanimous?
Hmmmmmmm ……
izlamo delenda est …