U.S. Supreme Court ends Oregon's non-unanimous jury system

(APRIL 24, 2020) On Monday, April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court made an important ruling in a case about Oregon. The Supreme Court decided that part of the state's jury system is unconstitutional. That means that it violates the rights and rules provided to citizens in the U.S. Constitution.

Since 1934, the state of Oregon has allowed "split verdicts" in some court cases. A "verdict" is a decision in a court case. Usually, a verdict must be unanimous, meaning all jurors agree. The jurors are the citizens who hear the arguments and decide if someone is guilty or innocent.

A "split verdict" has been allowed in some cases. That means that the verdict did not need to be unanimous. The jury could decide someone is guilty with only 10 out of 12 votes.

Historians say this practice had its roots in racial, ethnic and religious bigotry. Political leaders wanted to quiet minority jurors, including immigrants and religious minorities. Furthermore, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch says that a trial by jury means that "a jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict." (To "convict" someone means to find them guilty of a crime.)

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to end the non-unanimous system in Oregon. This means that decisions of hundreds, if not thousands of past court cases may no longer be valid. There will likely be many appeals to have cases reconsidered.

“After 85 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana today has finally ended an unjust rule with a shameful past in Oregon," says Aliza Kaplan. She is a law professor at Lewis & Clark College. “Now Oregon will be able to join the rest of the country.”