Ramos v. Louisiana

Background

A man in Louisiana, Evangelisto Ramos, was convicted by a 10‑to‑2 jury and sentenced to life without parole. Louisiana and Oregon long allowed some criminal convictions on 10‑to‑2 or 11‑to‑1 jury votes, while most other States and federal courts require unanimity. Ramos argued that his non‑unanimous conviction violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as applied to the States.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the right to “trial by an impartial jury” requires a unanimous verdict when that right is applied to the States. Relying on history, early treatises, and prior decisions, a majority concluded the jury trial right includes unanimity and that the Fourteenth Amendment makes that rule applicable to States. The Court explained that the 1972 Apodaca decision upholding non‑unanimous state verdicts rested on a fractured reasoning and should not control.

Real world impact

The ruling means state juries must be unanimous to convict in serious crimes. Louisiana and Oregon are directly affected; the opinion notes some cases on direct appeal may need retrials. Louisiana recently changed its rules prospectively for crimes after 2019. The Court left open some questions—for example, whether the rule applies to older convictions on collateral review—and said those issues will be decided later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices wrote separately. Justice Thomas agreed with the result but would ground the rule in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. Other Justices emphasized different stare‑decisis and reliance concerns, and a dissent warned of large practical consequences for the States.