Criminal Law

Miller v. Louisiana

At issue in Miller v. Louisiana is whether the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury requires that a criminal conviction be based on a unanimous jury verdict, and whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize that right.

Case Summary

On September 4th, 2012, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Miller v. Louisiana.

In 2003, petitioner Corey Miller was convicted of murder in the second degree by a 10-2 jury vote. Louisiana is one of just two states that permit conviction by a non-unanimous jury. Miller, a recording artist, had been found guilty of the shooting death of a 16-year-old fan during an altercation outside a Baton Rouge nightclub.

CAC’s brief urges the Supreme Court to reaffirm that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury requires that a criminal conviction be based on a unanimous jury verdict, and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize that right. The brief cites constitutional text and history on both points. Founders from John Adams to James Madison understood jury unanimity to be a bulwark of liberty, as essential to the jury trial right as the right to a jury of one’s neighbors and peers. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states, specifically mentioned the right to a jury trial as one of the fundamental rights newly protected against state infringement.

CAC emphasizes that the Court has already recognized the flaws of the current two-track system, which has required unanimity from federal juries but permitted states to obtain non-unanimous convictions. In 2010’s Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court reaffirmed that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights bind the states and the federal government equally—there is no “watered-down” version of these rights that applies only in the states. Importantly, the Court also acknowledged that Apodaca v. Oregon, the deeply fractured ruling that led to the current two-track jury unanimity system, was an outlier case based on “an unusual division among the Justices.” CAC filed a brief in McDonald on behalf of prominent constitutional scholars from across the ideological spectrum, arguing that the individual right to bear arms was “incorporated” against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment, and supporting the robust incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.

On February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case.

Case Timeline

More from Criminal Law

Criminal Law
July 30, 2026

CAC Release: In Important Victory for Digital Privacy, Supreme Court Holds that Even Short-Term Police Monitoring of Cell-Phone Location Information Is Regulated by the Fourth Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chatrie v. United States,...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes Clear Pathway to Habeas Relief in Mississippi Jury Race-Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Pitchford v. Cain, a...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Majority Rules that Judges Cannot Consider Changing Views of Crime when Reducing Sentences

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Rutherford v. United States...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Court’s Commitment to Text and History Falters in Compassionate Release Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fernandez v. United States, a case...
Criminal Law
April 27, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Criminal Law
March 31, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Availability of Habeas Relief in Mississippi Jury Race-Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pitchford v....
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen