The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied a petitioner's request to review the judgment (also known as certiorari) issued to him by the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's decision would've affected thousands of defendants all across the country.
In Herrera v Oregon, the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether or not the unanimous federal jury conviction requirement under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to state juries as well under the 14th Amendment. The case originated from an Oregon state court jury trial where the jury voted 10-2 in favor of Herrera's guilt.
The main issue in this case concerned whether or not a state court decision could be based upon a decision by a non-unanimous jury when deciding the guilt or innocence of a person on trial.
The Sixth Amendment Unanimous Jury Conviction Requirement
In order to assure impartiality, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all defendants charged with crimes punishable for more than six months are afforded the right to a trial by a jury of peers.
Under this same Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that in order to convict a person in federal court, the jury must come to a unanimous decision.
Generally, the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, apply to the federal government or defendants convicted of federal crimes. But the Court has construed a majority of these Amendments to apply to the states as well under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Unanimous Jury Conviction Requirement under the 14th Amendment
The Supreme Court considered this issue in a 1972 case, Apodaca v Oregon. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict does not apply to states under the 14th Amendment.
Herrera Argues Court's Jury Conviction Ruling Unclear
While most would presume Apodaca presents a definitive ruling on this issue, the petitioner in Herrera argues that the Court's historical rulings and actions regarding this matter are seemingly ambiguous. In September 2010, he petitioned the court to take a closer look at the issue.
In his petition, Herrera argued that the Court's ruling in Apodaca is simply the "result of an unusual division among the Justices, not an endorsement." Eight of the nine Justices in that case indicated that both federal and state criminal jury conviction requirements should be treated the same. However, the Justices came to a contradictory conclusion when the final decision was issued. They determined that juries in state criminal trials do not need to convict a defendant unanimously like they do in federal jury trials.
Relying on a Supreme Court decision from last year, Herrera has further proved the inconsistent nature of the Court. In McDonald v City Of Chicago, the Court concluded that it was erroneous to only apply a "watered-down version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights" to the states and said that it would be "incongruous to apply different standards depending on whether the claim was asserted in a state or federal court."
Unfortunately, by denying cert, it seems the Justices have for now remained silent on this matter. Presently, a unanimous jury verdict conviction is not required for cases tried in state court.
Importance of Seeking Defense Counsel
This case only illustrates the vitality that any and all criminal defendants tried under state law secure an experienced defense litigator.
