Criminal Justice

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s “Deeply Disappointing” Ruling in Edwards  

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court this morning issued its ruling in Edwards v Vannoy, holding that the rule announced last year in Ramos v. Louisiana—that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a unanimous jury verdict in both federal and state criminal trials—does not apply retroactively on collateral review. Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

We are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision this morning. As a result of this morning’s decision, someone who was convicted by a non-unanimous jury, and who exhausted his direct appeals before Ramos was decided, cannot challenge his unconstitutional conviction based on Ramos’s holding.

The majority this morning in Edwards all but admitted that Ramos announced a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure, which—under the Court’s precedent from Teague v. Lane—should apply retroactively. But the Court overruled that part of Teague, declaring that there is no “watershed” exception and that “procedural rules do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review”—no exceptions. This decision is wrong.

Echoing the amicus brief CAC filed on behalf of law professors and social scientists, Justice Kagan explained in dissent that the Ramos unanimity rule “is as ‘bedrock’ as bedrock comes” because it “is grounded in the Nation’s constitutional traditions—with centuries-old practice becoming part of the Sixth Amendment’s original meaning.”

The majority did not contest this characterization, but the Court nevertheless doubled down on its notion that no rule is “watershed” enough to apply retroactively. In doing so, it unfortunately overlooked the critical work the nation had to do after Teague, and still has to do, to root out systemic racism in our criminal justice system—as demonstrated by the Ramos ruling itself.

#

Resources:

CAC’s case page in Edwards v. Vannoyhttps://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/edwards-v-vannoy/

CAC’s case page in Ramos v. Louisianahttps://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/ramos-v-louisiana/

#

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
May 4, 2021

CAC Alert: Terry v. United States

Are certain individuals sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses prior to enactment of the Fair Sentencing...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Houston v. United States

In Houston v. United States, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the First Step Act of 2018 requires courts to consider certain sentencing factors, such as the need to avoid sentencing disparities...
Criminal Justice
April 26, 2021

Survivors of Police Violence Seek Justice, But Qualified Immunity Stands in the Way

While national attention has often been—rightfully—focused on fatal shootings by police and the ensuing lack...
By: Tekla Taylor, Miriam Becker-Cohen
Criminal Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Daves v. Dallas County, Texas, et al.

In Daves v. Dallas County, the en banc Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether Dallas County’s use of a secured money bail system violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of...
Criminal Justice
March 25, 2021

Supreme Court expands meaning of ‘seizure’ under 4th Amendment

Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the Constitution’s protection against an “unreasonable seizure,” ruling...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By David G. Savage
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Terry v. United States

In Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether certain individuals sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses prior to enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are eligible for reduced sentences under the...