Louisiana’s on its way to abolishing split jury verdicts in criminal trials, but that won’t help convicts like Evangelisto Ramos unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in.
The court’s been reluctant to take up the issue that’s again before it after Louisiana voted to abolish the practice Nov. 6, leaving Oregon alone in permitting it.
But the new Louisiana law that applies to offenses committed beginning in January doesn’t apply retroactively, Ramos notes in his petition for high court review, filed by attorneys with The Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans.
“The fact that unanimity still is not a requirement for the states is a very bizarre historical outlier that’s overdue for correction,” Thomas Frampton, Climenko Fellow and lecturer at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg Law.
“We’ve reached a point now where almost every other piece of the Bill of Rights is understood to apply not just to the federal government but also to the states,” said Frampton, a former public defender who recently published a law review article on the jury issue.
One group that could benefit from a Ramos victory if the court takes the case is the likely hundreds of defendants in the coming years “who face the prospect of non-unanimous trials in both Oregon and Louisiana unless the court acts,” he said.
Another is those recently convicted by split-juries in the last year or two, whose convictions have not yet become final on direct appeal, he said, surmising the number could be in the hundreds between the two states.
But retroactive relief is rare, Frampton noted, so it would be an uphill fight for those who have long since exhausted their direct appeals.
A spokesperson for the state attorney general declined comment beyond its brief in opposition to Ramos’ petition.
The potential retroactive effect is a reason for the court to stay out of the dispute, state officials argue in the filing.
“Thousands of final convictions in these two states could be upset if such a new rule were later declared retroactive,” they warn.
At the same time, Louisiana officials point to the dwindling number of defendants who will be affected by the issue—in light of the new Louisiana law—as another reason not to take the case.
Ramos was convicted of murder at a Louisiana state court trial in 2016. Ten of his 12 jurors voted for guilt. That wouldn’t have led to a conviction in most courtrooms around the country.
But for Ramos—who says he was convicted based on “purely circumstantial evidence” without any eyewitnesses—it could mean death in prison.
He wants the high court to announce that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of jury unanimity applies—or is “incorporated"—to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The court has applied most but not all of the Bill of Rights to the states through this process.
The reasoning in the high court’s partial incorporation of the Sixth Amendment in 1972’s Apodaca v. Oregon was a “never-used-before-never-used-since theory,” Ramos argues.
The court’s “curious view on incorporation"—itself the product of a fractured opinion—has been called into question by more recent precedent, he says.
The justices “should strike down non-unanimous juries based on the incorporation doctrine,” said Aliza Kaplan, a professor at the Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., whose scholarship Ramos cites in his brief.
She thinks it would be “great” if the Supreme Court takes up the issue. But she doubts the court will, in light of its refusal to do so in the past as well as the new Louisiana law, which—as the state notes in its opposition brief—means less people will be affected by split-verdicts.
Not incorporating the jury unanimity requirement here would be especially problematic, Ramos argues.
Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury rule was adopted during the 1898 Louisiana Constitutional Convention, “where the entire point of the Convention was to limit African-American participation in the democratic process and to ‘perpetuate the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race in Louisiana,’” his petition recounts, citing the official journal of the proceedings.
The white supremacist history of the law—brought to greater light in recent years—was one of the motivating factors in getting the Louisiana measure on the ballot.
“The Fourteenth Amendment,” Ramos argues, “was supposed to protect against these racist purposes, and the rational for incorporation is at its zenith under these circumstances.”
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)