When I first learned that Louisiana and Oregon allowed juries to return non-unanimous verdicts of guilty, I was shocked. It seemed inconceivable. After all, what was the point of a jury of twelve good men and true if not to reach agreement? It was simply so ingrained in my head that the alternative, a verdict of 11 and one or ten and two seemed ridiculous. Obviously not.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury. We refer to it as a jury of one’s peers, although that language appears nowhere in the amendment. Nor does it say that the verdict of that impartial jury must be unanimous. But the federal government required jury unanimity. These, however, were states, and states are entitled to make their own rules of criminal procedure unless the Supreme Court holds that the constraints of the federal Constitution applies to them as well. Continue reading

