Criminal Justice

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 Justice

Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Timbs v. Indiana

In Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether state governments must comply with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “excessive fines.”
Criminal Justice
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Alasaad v. Nielsen

In Alasaad v. Nielsen, the district court for the District of Massachusetts is considering whether the First and Fourth Amendments permit law enforcement officers—without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of illegal activity—to search...
Criminal Justice
November 30, 2017

Where Are We with Location Privacy? Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument in Carpenter v. United States

Host: American Bar Association
The privacy of cell phone location information and free speech will be the focus of...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Alan Jay Butler, Dan Schweitzer, Jake Laperruque
Criminal Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Walker v. City of Calhoun

In Walker v. City of Calhoun, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the City’s use of a secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders violates the Equal Protection...
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Tyler v. United States

In Tyler v. United States, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than...
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility

In Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility, the Supreme Court was asked to hear a case that raises the question whether the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act prevents an indigent prisoner...