Criminal Justice

Ramos v. Louisiana

In Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases.

Case Summary

In 2015, petitioner Evangelisto Ramos was indicted in Louisiana state court for second-degree murder. Ramos maintained his innocence and demanded a jury trial. After deliberating, ten of the twelve jurors found him guilty, and under a provision of Louisiana’s constitution allowing for non-unanimous jury verdicts, that was enough to convict Ramos. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Ramos appealed his conviction, arguing that the U.S. Constitution requires jury unanimity to convict. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, relying on a 1972 Supreme Court decision called Apodaca v. Oregon, rejected Ramos’s claim that Louisiana’s non-unanimity rule is unconstitutional, and when Ramos appealed that decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court, it denied review. Ramos then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review in March 2019.

CAC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of law professors and social scientists in support of petitioner. Our brief makes three main points. First, using empirical evidence, we explain that jury unanimity is essential to the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Research has demonstrated that a unanimous jury requirement strengthens deliberations, ensures more accurate outcomes, fosters greater consideration of minority viewpoints, and boosts confidence in verdicts and the justice system. Second, we argue that the Framers understood that jury unanimity is a critical component of the right to trial by jury in criminal cases. Finally, we argue that the Supreme Court should overturn its deeply divided decision in Apodaca v. Oregon, which concluded that the Sixth Amendment requires jury unanimity in federal criminal trials but not in state criminal trials. We argue that modern empirical evidence and subsequent case law undermine Apodaca’s reasoning and conclusions.

Case Timeline