The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution requires states to secure a unanimous jury verdict in order to convict any defendant accused of a serious crime.
In a 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the high court abolished split jury decisions in Ramos v. Louisiana. The decision was about whether the Constitution allows a person to be convicted of a serious crime if the state fails to convince all 12 members of the jury of the defendant's guilt.
The decision was a defeat for Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry who advocated for a return to split jury verdicts to Louisiana. Louisiana voters abolished its non-unanimous jury law in 2019. As the immediate past president of the National Association of Attorneys General, Landry was only able to convince a dozen of the group’s members to support him in his quest.
The Supreme Court decision was applauded by both liberals and conservatives, including the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center and the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a libertarian think tank based in New Orleans.
Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, said he was happy to see SCOTUS validate the decision of Louisiana voters.
“We must do everything we can to continue removing unconstitutional barriers to opportunity for the citizens of our state,” Erspamer told the Record. “This includes ensuring that the rights of incarcerated individuals, many of whom have experienced the damaging effects of our past approaches to justice, are protected."
Erspamer said the decision was a victory for the constitutional rights of all Americans.
“For far too long, Louisiana’s criminal justice system vividly exemplified the dangers of heavy-handed government, and this is another positive step forward in lifting this burden off our state’s citizens,” Erspamer said.
The American Bar Association and the conservative Rutherford Institute also opposed Landry’s effort to reinstate split jury verdicts in Louisiana. The ACLU, the NAACP and the Innocence Project also opposed Landry’s case.
SCOTUS did not address whether Evangelisto Ramos, the man for whom the case is named, was guilty or innocent of the murder of Trenice Fedison for which he was convicted. The decision gives Ramos the right to a new trial. Ramos adamantly maintains that he did not commit the murder. He was unable to afford an attorney to write his appeals. He authored the appeals himself.