Ramos v. Louisiana

Background

Evangelisto Ramos is a person convicted in a state criminal trial by a jury that did not reach a unanimous verdict. Two States, Louisiana and Oregon, historically allowed non‑unanimous jury verdicts; this case asked whether that practice is allowed under the Constitution and whether the earlier decision that permitted it should be overturned.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous guilty verdicts in state trials and whether the prior decision Apodaca should be overruled. The majority concluded Apodaca was wrong and overruled it, holding that state criminal juries must be unanimous to convict. The Court emphasized the constitutional history and precedents about jury rights, noted the racially discriminatory origins and continuing effects of the non‑unanimous rules in Louisiana and Oregon, and weighed the practical costs against the need to correct an important constitutional error.

Real world impact

Going forward, states may not convict felony defendants by non‑unanimous jury votes. Some convictions that are still on direct appeal may be invalidated or retried. The Court discussed limits on retroactivity: under existing habeas rules, many final convictions may remain unaffected, and at least one State has already moved toward unanimity for new trials.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices filed separate opinions: one Justice stressed stare decisis and race history in support of overruling; another agreed with the result but would rely on different constitutional text; a dissent warned that overruling Apodaca disrupts heavy reliance and burdens state courts.