Every lawyer, and most people, assumed under the law that juries had to be unanimous (all 12 votes if in a jury trial in California) in order to convict a person of a crime. Defense counsel has argued that unanimity is a required admonition to a Defendant prior to taking a plea. In fact, this defense attorney has argued about prior convictions that such a conviction is not constitutional or valid unless the court advised the defendant prior to taking a plea that he had a right to a jury trial, he could participate in the selection of the jurors, and that the verdict must be unanimous.
Even though I have been practicing criminal law for 49 years and going to trial defending people charged with crimes, I was not aware that two states – Louisiana and Oregon – allowed for nonunanimous convictions. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that such procedures were unconstitutional in a case entitled Ramos v. Louisiana (2020). In Ramos the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a prior decision from 1972 (Apodaca).
The Ramos decision raises new issues, i.e., whether the rule of law of a unanimous jury in spite of state procedures applies retroactively or to all cases concerning nonunanimous opinions. It becomes a procedural question and is left for another day.
Contact me today if you’ve been charged with a DUI in Los Angeles.
