Apodaca v. Oregon

1972-05-22

Headline: Court allows states to convict defendants by nonunanimous juries, upholding Oregon’s 10-2 and 11-1 verdicts and making some state felony convictions easier to sustain without unanimity.

Holding: The Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not require unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials and therefore affirmed Oregon convictions based on less-than-unanimous 10–2 and 11–1 jury votes.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to uphold convictions by 10-2 or 11-1 jury votes.
Means some criminal convictions can stand despite dissenting jurors.
Leaves unanimity rules to states and their courts or legislatures.

Topics: jury unanimity, state criminal trials, jury deliberation rules, conviction standards

Summary

Background

Three Oregon defendants were convicted in separate trials by juries that did not reach unanimous verdicts: two convictions were 11-1 and one was 10-2, the minimum allowed under Oregon law. They challenged those convictions, arguing the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires unanimous verdicts.

Reasoning

The Court examined the history of the jury and previous decisions, including a recent ruling that the Constitution does not require a 12-person jury. It focused on the jury’s modern function as a representative group of laypeople who deliberate together. The majority concluded that unanimity does not materially add to that function and rejected arguments tying unanimity to the reasonable-doubt standard or to the community cross-section protections. The Court therefore affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals and upheld the nonunanimous convictions.

Real world impact

Because the Court upheld Oregon’s rule, States may uphold laws that allow convictions by less-than-unanimous juries, subject to any state constitutional limits. The decision means some criminal convictions can stand even when one or two jurors dissent, and it leaves to legislatures and state courts whether to require unanimity.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented, arguing that longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents support a unanimous jury requirement and that the majority should have reversed the convictions.