Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
7-22-2020
Abstract
Amici are law professors and social scientists whose research and teaching address the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict and the demonstrated benefits that right produces. They have a strong interest in ensuring that this Court understands the full extent of those benefits when determining whether the rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020), requiring jury unanimity in state and federal criminal trials, applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. In particular, they have an interest in affirming the wisdom of the Ramos rule and demonstrating that the rule is necessary to avoid an impermissibly large risk of inaccurate convictions. As students of the jury, amici are also well aware that at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption, both the English and American legal systems recognized the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict as a bedrock element essential to the fairness of a criminal proceeding.<\p>
This case raises the critical question whether the rule this Court announced last Term in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390—which held that the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees criminal defendants in both state and federal court the right to a unanimous jury verdict, id. at 1397—applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. Before this Court decided Ramos, a jury in Louisiana state court found Petitioner Thedrick Edwards, an African American man, guilty of several serious charges, all by votes of 10-2 or 11-1. Pet’r Br. 2, 5. The one African American member of Edwards’ jury voted to acquit on all counts. Id. at 5 & n.1. At the time in Louisiana, however, these non-unanimous jury verdicts were sufficient to convict, and Edwards was sentenced to multiple consecutive terms, including life imprisonment without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Id. at 6.<\p>
Recommended Citation
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. and Lempert, Richard O., "Edwards v. Vannoy: Brief of Law Professors and Social Scientists as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (2020). Appellate Briefs. 70.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/70
Comments
Amicus: Diamond, Professor Howard J.; Ellsworth, Professor Phoebe C.; Hans, Professor Valerie P.; Hastie, Professor Reid; Landsman, Professor Stephan; Lempert, Professor Richard O.; Marder, Professor Nancy S.; Penrod, Professor Steven D.; Rose, Professor Mary; Saks, Professor Michael; Sommers, Professor Samuel R.