140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020)
Evangelisto Ramos was charged with a serious criminal offense and tried in a Louisiana state court.1 At trial, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict of guilty by a vote of ten to two.2 Under Louisiana law at the time, non-unanimous verdicts were permitted in criminal cases, and only Louisiana and Oregon allowed such verdicts among the states.3
Ramos's conviction was upheld under the authority of Apodaca v. Oregon, in which the Supreme Court had held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts in federal criminal trials but permits non-unanimous verdicts in state trials.4 Subsequently, Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring unanimous jury verdicts for criminal convictions.5 Ramos then challenged his conviction on direct review, arguing that the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated against the states, mandates unanimous verdicts in state criminal trials for serious offenses.6
The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Ramos's argument, relying on the precedent established in Apodaca.7 The case reached the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to consider whether Apodaca should be overruled. On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.8
Whether the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict a defendant of a serious offense in state criminal trials?9
The Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.10 The text, historical evidence from the founding era, and the common-law tradition establish that this right includes a requirement of unanimity to convict a defendant of a serious offense.11 The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates this right against the states.12
Yes. The Sixth Amendment's text requires unanimity because the common law demanded it and the founding-era understanding carried that requirement forward into the Amendment.13 Historical practice in the colonies, early state constitutions, and ratification debates confirms that the jury-trial right meant a unanimous verdict.14 In this case, Ramos was convicted in Louisiana state court by a 10-to-2 verdict, which is less than unanimous and therefore violates the incorporated Sixth Amendment right.15
The Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict a defendant of a serious offense in state criminal trials.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials.17 He writes separately to explain that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause, is the proper vehicle for incorporating the Sixth Amendment against the States.18 The Privileges or Immunities Clause provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.19
The right to a unanimous jury verdict was among the privileges of citizenship at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification.20 He would rest the decision on that ground rather than follow the due-process incorporation approach taken in Apodaca.21
Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the conclusion that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts.22 He joins all but Part IV-B of the Court's opinion.23 He writes separately to emphasize two points.
First, the historical evidence strongly supports the Court's conclusion that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity. Second, the reliance interests of the States are insufficient to retain a decision that was wrongly decided from the start. He agrees that Apodaca should be overruled and that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts in state criminal trials.24
Justice Sotomayor concurs in the result and underscores that overruling Apodaca is compelled because the decision was on shaky ground from the start.25 She joins all but Part IV-A of the Court's opinion.26 The interests at stake point far more clearly to that outcome than those in other recent cases.
Finally, the racially biased origins of the Louisiana and Oregon laws uniquely matter here. She stresses that the force of stare decisis is at its nadir in cases concerning criminal procedure rules that implicate fundamental constitutional protections, where the right to avoid imprisonment pursuant to unconstitutional procedures hangs in the balance.
Whether Apodaca v. Oregon should be overruled?27
Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.28 A precedent may be overruled when it is egregiously wrong as a matter of law, has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and overruling it would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests.29 Apodaca was an outlier that cannot be squared with the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment or with subsequent incorporation precedents.30
Yes. Apodaca was egregiously wrong because five Justices in that case itself disagreed with the plurality's view of the Sixth Amendment, and the decision is irreconcilable with the Court's long-recognized unanimity requirement and its incorporation precedents.31 Apodaca has caused negative consequences by sanctioning convictions that would not stand under the proper rule and by tolerating a practice with racist origins and discriminatory effects.32 Reliance interests are not sufficient to retain it because only two states used the rule, the transition is already underway in Louisiana, and the decision will not apply retroactively on collateral review under Teague.33
Ramos was convicted by a 10-to-2 verdict in Louisiana state court.34
Apodaca v. Oregon should be overruled.35
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment that Apodaca should be overruled.36 He would decide the incorporation question under the Privileges or Immunities Clause and would not apply the due-process incorporation precedents that Apodaca followed.37 The remaining question is whether the right is protected against the States.
In his view, the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides this protection. He does not adhere to this Court's decisions applying due process incorporation, including Apodaca. He would accept the invitation to decide the case under the Privileges or Immunities Clause because all opinions in Apodaca addressed the Due Process Clause, so its Fourteenth Amendment ruling does not bind on the proper question here.38
Justice Kavanaugh concurs that Apodaca should be overruled.39 He applies a three-part stare decisis framework and concludes that Apodaca is egregiously wrong, causes significant negative consequences including racially discriminatory effects, and that overruling it would not unduly upset reliance interests given the limited number of states affected and the availability of non-retroactivity doctrines.40 The first consideration asks whether the prior decision is not just wrong but egregiously wrong as a matter of law.
The second asks whether it has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences. The third asks whether overruling would unduly upset reliance interests. Applying these to this case, he agrees with the Court's decision to overrule Apodaca.
He joins the introduction and Parts I, II-A, III, and IV-B-1 of the Court's opinion.41
Justice Sotomayor concurs that Apodaca should be overruled.42 She stresses that the force of stare decisis is at its nadir for criminal-procedure rules implicating fundamental constitutional protections and that the racially biased origins of the non-unanimous jury laws weigh heavily in favor of correction. She agrees with most of the Court's rationale and joins all but Part IV-A of its opinion.43
Overruling precedent here is not only warranted, but compelled.44 Both the majority and the dissent emphasize that stare decisis has been fundamental since the founding, yet Apodaca was on shaky ground from the start because it is irreconcilable with two strands of constitutional precedent on the Sixth Amendment and incorporation.45 Where the State's power to imprison rests on an erroneous interpretation of the jury-trial right, the Court should not hesitate to reconsider its precedents.46
Joined by Chief Justice Roberts
Justice Alito dissents from the holding that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts in state trials.47 He maintains that Apodaca was a reasonable resolution of the incorporation question and that the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment does not clearly require unanimity in all cases.48 He argues that the decision has elicited enormous and reasonable reliance by Louisiana and Oregon, that thousands of convictions would be called into question, and that the majority's approach to overruling precedent is inconsistent with principles of stare decisis.49
He would adhere to Apodaca and affirm the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.50 The doctrine of stare decisis gets rough treatment in today's decision, lowering the bar for overruling precedents with little regard for the enormous reliance the decision has engendered.51