A criminal defendant is only found guilty in the United States if a unanimous jury, every single juror, agrees. If the jury cannot agree, it is a “hung jury,” and the government can try again. The Supreme Court only required every state to follow this rule a few years ago. It helps ensure all voices are heard and respected, and that the jury is very sure the person is guilty. But is the rule necessary? Were things so bad until 2020? Should we let one troublesome juror throw a wrench into the works? Or prevent a “not guilty” verdict?
A Late Fix
The federal and state governments usually have to follow the same rules.
Juries are a partial exception. The Supreme Court protects the right of criminal defendants to be tried by a jury without applying every jury-related provision in the Bill of Rights to the states. Federal territories are also a special case with certain different rules over the years.
States do not have to use grand juries to indict people or follow the Seventh Amendment’s (civil juries) commands. They do not need to use twelve-person juries.
Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) added the requirement of unanimous verdicts in criminal cases.
How Obvious?
The unanimous jury rule appears obvious to many. It is a central aspect of our culture. The classic film Twelve Angry Men (a title that reflects its being of a different era) portrays one dissenter convincing the rest of the jury that the defendant was not guilty.
What would happen if the film took place in Louisiana, Oregon, or Puerto Rico, where every juror did not have to agree? If one or two angry men could prevent a not guilty verdict?
Civil juries sometimes still hand down verdicts, including very large civil damage judgments, without every juror agreeing. Totally constitutional.
The Supreme Court decides the law. It might still be wrong, no matter how final.
The Problems Of A Split Vote
A guilty verdict is a very serious matter. It can result in a long prison sentence. Or even the death penalty. Many safeguards are in place, including that the jury find the person guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A defendant can also decide to let a judge alone decide.
The jury is the “conscience of the community.” Each jury represents the community as a whole much as members of Congress represent the country. Twelve (as is usually the case) citizens come together to examine the facts. They are a “cross section of the community,” which underlines why it is wrong to discriminate. Today, women as well as men are on juries.
The requirement of a unanimous jury furthers these ends in multiple ways. It helps provide a voice to different members of society. The majority’s sentiments alone will not win out. Minority viewpoints need to be respected. Unanimous agreement means that each person has to agree. Each person’s voice, even those different from others, must be respected.
Ramos v. Louisiana provided evidence that the non-unanimous jury system was partially influenced by racism. Black people might be on the jury, but their voices could be ignored if they were only a minority. The same applies to various ethnic, religious, and gender groups.
A unanimous jury also furthers the “beyond a reasonable doubt” principle. Each person has to agree. One person’s reasonable doubts can result in a non-animous “hung jury.”
The jurors are more likely to carefully examine the evidence, with the abilities of each member helping in the process. Majority rule makes sense when passing legislation.
It is not good enough when determining the innocence or guilt of a criminal defendant.
Well, Maybe Not …
Chief Justice Roberts (a conservative), Justices Alito (more conservative), and Kagan (a liberal) dissented in Ramos. They did not think unanimous juries were constitutionally required in state trials. A major reason was precedent.
The Supreme Court, for a long time, declared that federal trials required unanimous verdicts. Nonetheless, the Court argued that the Fourteenth Amendment and federalism provided more flexibility to state trials. They had been saying so on this specific matter for fifty years.
The Supreme Court respects longstanding precedents (stare decisis) unless there is a very good reason to change the rules. Racial segregation eventually was understood to be gravely wrong.
These three justices did not think a good reason was available. For instance, perhaps racism was originally the reason for the policy (but what about Puerto Rico?). It was not in recent years. When the American Bar Association endorsed the policy, were they motivated by racism?
Rogue Jurors
A more legitimate reason for a non-unanimous jury rule is that sometimes a “rogue” juror causes problems. A juror might be unreasonable, not pay attention, or simply refuse to follow the law. One troublesome juror might negate the efforts of eleven reasonable ones.
The rule might be counterproductive to criminal defendants. A single “guilty” vote can prevent a not guilty verdict. A not guilty verdict prevents the government from trying you again.
A non-unanimous jury rule also does not necessarily mean the majority will ignore dissenters. The dissenting jurors are present and have the ability to argue their case.
Academic studies have parsed the value of unanimous juries. They disagree on the net value and effects of the rule. The practice is not free from problems. Another way is not unreasonable.
A mere majority (for example, 7-5) does seem too small. But maybe allowing one or more dissenters is okay. A 5-4 Supreme Court majority has regularly handed down significant opinions with nationwide significance. Is an 11-1 vote, even in a minor criminal case, simply unreasonable?
Unanimous agreement is hard. Juries sometimes have “compromise verdicts” where jurors paper over disagreements by agreeing to convict on some charges even if some jurors are doubtful.
Is this better than non-unanimous juries? There is no unanimity on the answer.