Unanimous Versus Non Unanimous Jury Verdicts Law Essay

unscathed Versus Non unharmed venire Verdicts Law tasteIn the unify deposits, 48 stirs require unanimous lamentable control panel finding of facts. A unanimous venire verdict proposes that every(prenominal) control boardmans came to a third e pass on termination in the criminal proceedings. lanthanum and operating theater ar the hardly 2 states that allow non- concurrence dialog box verdicts. atomic number 57 statue allows juries to reprove felony suspects by pick outr turnouts of 10 to 2 and allows such(prenominal) non-unanimous verdicts in felony graphic symbols where the punishment is durance with hard labor. The solitary(prenominal) punishment that requires a unanimous 12 panelwoman vote verdict is the death penalty. The operating room State spirit allows for non-unanimous indictable verdicts to be returned when 10 of 12 jurors agree on guilt, except in themes of first story murder, where accord is required.Within the last yr, dickens major b ailiwicks Miller v. atomic number 57 (2005) and Bowen v. operating theater (2007) have been decided in controversy. This has re-established the question of Louisiana and Oregons constitutionality and justness in respect to the def annihilateants Sixth Amendment rights. In May 2009 Corey C- mutilate Miller was convicted of second degree murder by a 10 to 2 board decision and in August sentenced to a piece of musicdatory life imprisonment with no possibility of parole in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In Millers case, initially three jurors believed he was non guilty besides one changed her vote (C.J. Lin, 2009). Ms. Jacob was the deciding vote and stated in a newspaper converse that, she does non feel that the prosecutors proved their case beyond a presumable question. But she express she voted once to convict Miller just to end weighings because of the brutal pressure applied by some jurors on some other(prenominal) juror who thought the rapper was innocent (C.J. Lin, 2009). Louisiana declined to rehear the case on the grounds brought by the NAACP President. In October 2009, the United State dogmatic court of constabulary announced they would not hear the case of an Oregon man Scott Davis Bowen sentenced to 17 years, who was convicted of sexual abuse, sodomy and rape of his 15-year old stepdaughter by a split panel, which put an end to the issue of non-unanimity to the higher state mash until some other case is brought forward (Green, 2009).History of Jury TrialsThe Supreme tourist court originally held that the Sixth Amendment right to a panel streamlet indicated a right to tryout that was based on Englands common law when the Constitution was seeed in 1787. Therefore, juries had to be comprise of twelve persons and that the verdict had to be unanimous. When the 14th Amendment was established the Supreme motor lodge ex fly the cooped the right to trial by board to defendants in state courts. The number of jurors was re- hit the booksd and it was held that twelve came to be the number of jurors by historical accident, and that six jurors would be sufficient but whatsoeverthing less than six would deprive the defendant the right of a fairly and impartial instrument panel. On the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in federal jury trials, however, but the Supreme Court has govern that the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause requires states to issue jury trials for upright abhorrences but the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorpo rank all the elements of a jury trial within the significance of the Sixth Amendment in which jury unanimity is not required.Statement of hassleThis research paper bequeath examine the constitutionality and impartiality of Oregon and Louisianas statues on Non- self-colored Jury Verdicts. deplorable convictions based on non-unanimous verdicts are at risk of increasing and providing harsher punishment that is sanctifyn without reconsideration. The thoroughness of jury deliberation is questionable because of the lack of interest in being a juror to a time consuming case, as wellspring as the decrement in hung juries in the states court system which eliminates the chances of retrials to introduce saucily found express or to re-examine original evidence. Unanimity ensures the try of from each one(prenominal) several(prenominal) juror and preserves the jurys independence from the courts influences as well as affirms the reasonable doubt standard.Research distrustsAre unanimous jury verdicts a violation of criminal defendants Sixth Amendment rights?What are the effects of Louisiana and Oregons statues on the conviction straddle of violent crimes (Murder, racy violate and arm Robbery)?What impact do Louisiana and Oregon statues have on dynamic headroom rate compared to the adjoin states?For the purpose of this research, the following terms have been defined for a clearer under rest of the generators points and sugge stions.Key TermsSixth Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the criminate shall enjoy the right to a speedy and state-supported trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously as originaled by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have commanding process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (Constitution, 1791).Fourteenth Amendment No State shall make or enforce both law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall whatever State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of laws (Constitution, 1868). hearty of one opinion in complete proportionateness agreed ( unhurt, 2010).Non-solid unable to reach an agreement with volume and minority groups.Murder the unlawful kill and intentional killing of a human being in some instances the killing of other while in the commission or attempted commission of some other crime (Falcone, 2005).Forcible Rape The aggravated form of rape, where sexual conversation with a female is gained by the use of force or peril use of force, generally with a weapon of some sort (Falcone, 2005). fortify Robbery the direct taking of property (including money) from a person (victim) done force, threat or intimidation, Armed robbery involves the use of a poor boy or other weapon which can do bodily misemploy (Falcone, 2005).Clearance Any instance where a known Uniform nuisance wrap up violation is cleared to the satisfaction of the police or other law enforcement agency (Falcone, 2005).Literature ReviewSupreme Court DecisionsWilliams v. Florida 1970Question Did a trial by jury of less than 12 persons ruin the Sixth Amendment?The Court held that the 1 2-man jury requirement cannot be regarded as an indwelling component of the Sixth Amendment (Williams v. Florida, 1970). The Court found that the purpose of the jury trial was to prevent oppression by the Government (Williams v. Florida, 1970), and that the performance of this role was not dependent on the particular number of mickle on the jury. The Court concluded that the fact that the jury at common law was composed of precisely 12 is a historical accident, unnecessary to affect the purposes of the jury system and wholly without significance except to mystics (Williams v. Florida, 1970).Decision 6 votes for Florida, 2 votes againstApodaca v. Oregon 1972Question Is a defendants right to trial by jury in a criminal case in a state court (as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments) violated if the incriminate is convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury?The Court held that the most meaning(a) black market of the jury is to provide commonsense judgment (Apodaca v. Oregon , 1972) in evaluating the respective arguments of accused and accuser. Requiring unanimity would not necessarily contribute to this function (Apodaca v. Oregon, 1972).Decision 5 votes for Oregon, 4 votes againstJohnson v. Louisiana 1972Question Do less-than-unanimous jury verdicts in certain cases violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?The Court held that less-than-unanimous convictions did not violate the reasonable doubt standard embodied in the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. justness White argued, that a minority opposing conviction does not prevent the other jurors from reaching their decisions beyond a reasonable doubt (Johnson v. Louisiana, 1972). Further more than, the presence of dissenting jurors does not indicate that the state failed to uphold this standard. Finally, allowing less-than-unanimous decisions in certain cases serves a rational state purpose, not offensive to the Constitution (Johnson v. Louisiana, 1972).D ecision 5 votes for Louisiana, 4 votes againstIn Favor of UnanimityOregons Measure 72 to Bring Balance to the Jury Process in Murder qualitysMeasure 72 does not give new right to victims instead it allows Oregonians to give up their right to be convicted by unanimous juries. Measure 72 is dangerous to the minority communities in Oregon, where innocent defendants would otherwise be saved from conviction by a twelfth juror. This measure is expensive to the state of Oregon and may read to the early release of criminals. The overcrowded jails will continue to join on with criminals because of the ejection of unloosen and restricting options like work release and home detention (Oregon, 1999).Bowen v. Oregon entreaty for Writ of Certiorari to the Oregon Court of AppealsIn the case of Scott David Bowen v. State of Oregon (2007), those in favor of the Petitioner Bowen, believes unanimity promotes lively jury deliberations. When unanimity is required, juries are opted to utilize the ir time more expeditiously before coming to a verdict. When unanimity is not required jurors tend to end their deliberations soon afterward the required majority was reached. Robust deliberations provide an opportunity for those in the minority to persuade their fellow jurors to change their opinions. It allows unconformist to point out the fine distinction that leads to a consensus that the defendant is not guilty, or that a lesser included charge is more appropriate, after a thorough consideration of the evidence (Scott David Bowen v. State of Oregon On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Oregon Court of Appeals, 2009).The National State Courts provided questionnaires from approximately 3,500 jurors of information on the jurys first ballots and final verdicts. Over 10 part of the cases, jurors who favored a minority position at the said(prenominal) time of the first ballot were able to convince the majority jurors to adopt the minoritys favored verdict. The felony juries in those cases in which just one or devil jurors were the minority on the first ballot, only 2.9% ended with a hung jury. In the 83%, if the cases in which hung juries did guide, the minority position was initially supported by at least three jurors (Scott David Bowen v. State of Oregon On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Oregon Court of Appeals, 2009).Preserving the Value of unanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in Anti-Deadlock InstructionsHung juries are a very important element to the jury system especially in states such as Louisiana and Oregon who do not require an unanimous verdict. A hung jury is a social and monetary cost to the court system, to the stirred parties and, on a larger scale, to the community. The partiality for unanimous jury exists in need of avoiding coercing jurors to comply with a verdict with which they do not agree. If at that place is no unity the trial will end without a verdict. If the judge pushes the jurors too hard to come to an agreement, any resulting verdict must be reversed.The unanimity requirement is an important part of the jury process1. It empowers each jurors vote with individual meaning. Each juror has a voice, the discussions are ofttimes more vigorous and in-depth, and the results usually represents the voice of each person in the room (BoveIII, 2008).2. Requiring unanimity reinforces the symbolic legitimacy that attaches to a jury of the defendants peers (BoveIII, 2008).Justice, land and the JuryThe trial process is perceived as being lucid with democratic ideals and expressions of the communitys voice. These general perceptions of the process are improved by the unanimity requirements impact on deliberations. Beyond the pursuit of justice, juries provide individuals with an opportunity to operate in participatory democracy to a undischargeder extent than in other areas of civic life (Gobert, 1998).When Democracy is Not Self-Government Toward a refutation of the Unanimity witness for Criminal JuriesJ ury service requires people from all walks of life to gather together and decide the fate of another member of their own community. Unlike the decentralized legislative process or national electoral campaigns, jurors sit on the front line of their decision and debate with each other directly (Primus, 1997).Jury in Spector Murder case tells Judge it is DeadlockedPhil Spector was accused of killing actress Lana Clarkson in 2003. afterwards deliberating for seven days, the jury indicated that it was deadlocked noting that the split was 7 votes to 5 without telling which side had the majority. The jury indicated the disagreement was on the meaning of reasonable doubt and confusion on how to weigh evidence and interpret the instruction manual for second-degree murder. In the end, the judge simply re-read most of the instructions, and removed the language he said misstated the law, and added additional instructions on what constitute reasonable doubt. After another week of deliberation , the judge declared a mistrial due to the deadlock. Jury indicated two holdouts prevented the convictions. The major problems with how the decision came about wereThe jury is likely to put great emphasis on everything that the judge says or asks (Archibold, 2007).Altering the jury instructions which suggested to the jury that the court preferred some type of conviction in the case even if its on a different charge rather than a mistrial (Archibold, 2007).Not in Favor of UnanimityOregons Measure 72 to Bring Balance to the Jury Process in Murder CasesThe Oregonians concurred that the cogency of the jury to acquit or convict a person for any crime except Murder or Aggravated Murder by a vote of 10 to 2 has worked well with their court system. Since the thirties Oregonians have understood that one juror, who has discriminatory or pre-determined ideas, would never convict or acquit anyone regardless of the statue or evidence provided should not be allowed to determine justice. In relev ance to this measure is the case of Andrew Whitaker, a 16 year old boy who admitted purposely murdering a 12 year old girl was luckily given the sentence of Second-Degree Manslaughter in format to avoid the case resulting in a hung jury. Whitaker served a 28 month sentence because one of the jurors refused to vote for murder because her son had been involved in a traffic accident involving a child (Oregon, 1999).Letting the Supermajority Rule Non- unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trialsThe jury represents the people standing mingled with a possibly oppressive government and the lonely, accused individual (Glasser, 1997). Statistics attest that hung juries can lead to a mistrial in 5 to 12 percent of the more than 200,000 felony criminal jury trials that occur in the United States each year (Glasser, 1997). Reducing the frequency of hung juries without sacrificing justice should be a priority to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Majority-rule juries rende r a verdict more quickly and tend to adopt a verdict-driven deliberation style, which jurors vote early and conduct discussion in an adversarial manner, rather evidence-driven style, in which jurors first discuss the evidence as one group and vote later. The majority-rule juries generally vote sooner than unanimity rules juries (Glasser, 1997).Why non-unanimous jury verdicts are Constitutional in criminal casesSchwartz state that unanimity in criminal jury verdicts are not worth preserving and would rather have majority verdicts given by jurors who are strongly encouraged to stick to their principles. The elimination of the unanimity rule would to a fault eliminate the use of peremptory challenges. twain eliminations would create more fully deliberative juries because the jury would better represent a fair cross section of the community and more voices will be heard (Schwartz, 2009).Case Study Are Hung Juries a ProblemHannaford-Agor, Hans, Mott and Munsterman (2002) did a quartett e year study under a distribute from the National Institute of Justice, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) on juror deadlock.MethodologyBroad-based survey of federal and state courts to document hung jury judgeThe project team selected four courts for an in-depth jurisdictional study on just about 400 felony trials. Using surveys of judges, attorneys, and jurors, the NCSC examined case characteristics, interpersonal dynamics during jury deliberations, and juror demographics and attitudes and compared these traits in cases in which the jury reached a verdict to cases in which the jury deadlocked on one or more charges.A case study of 46 deadlocked cases from the in-depth jurisdictional study to develop categorization of reasons for jury deadlockselective information CollectionSurveyorsResponsesJudges90%Lawyers88%Jurors80%From approximately 100 non-capital felony jury trials in each of the sites amongst June 2000 and August 2001. The final dataset consisted of a total 38 2 cases, with which 13 percent of the cases hung on one or more charges.FindingsThe average hung jury rate was 6.2% only slightly higher than the 5.5% reported by Kalven and Zeisel in 1966, but with a great deal of variation ranging from 0.1% in Pierce County, Washington to 14.8% in Los Angeles County, California in which both states are immediately surrounding Oregon a non-unanimous state. The proposal was to eliminate the requirement of all jurors to decide nem con on a verdict reduces hung jury pass judgment, but the limitation was the author ignored addressing why one or two individuals refused to comply with the majority. xx percent of jurors admitted that they did not begin to form an opinion about the evidence until they collaborated with the other jurors and one-quarter changed their minds about their first decision preferences because of deliberation.ConclusionThe findings was juries that hung reported more trouble remembering the evidence and law, less thorough discussi ons of the evidence during deliberations, more conflict among the jurors and more domination by one or two jurors and a larger presence of unreasonable people on the jury. Hung jurors were also considerably less satisfied with the deliberation process than verdict jurors (Hannaford-Agor, Hans, Mott, Munsterman, 2002).Case Study- On the Frequency of Non-Unanimous Felony Verdicts in OregonThe Oregon Public Defense Services (OPDS) embark on the task to collect and analyze quantitative data relating to the regularity of non-unanimous verdicts.MethodologyData was collected from the Oregon juridic Information Network (OJIN)Calendar YearFelony jury trials that reached the verdict wooden leg20078332008588 integral1421Calendar YearIndigent Appeal Request20073202008342Total662 (out of 1421)The 662 appeals represented 46.5% of all felony jury trials, which was divided into three groups and was classified by jury verdict form, the judgment and transcript recordation of the polling of the ju ry.Unanimous jury verdictNon-Unanimous jury verdictUnclear from recordsFindings65.5% of all cases included a non-unanimous verdict on at least one count.27 out of 833 felony jury trials in Oregon for 2007 resulted in a hung jury, yielding a hung jury rate of 3.2%.15 out of the 588 felony jury trials Oregon for 2008 resulted in a hung jury, yielding a hung jury rate of 2.5%.ConclusionThe data indicated that non-unanimous juries occur with great frequency in felony trials throughout the state. If we were to assume that all in the unknown cases, where polling was not conducted, and unanimity was the result, non-unanimity would still be present in over 40% of all felony jury verdicts. Oregon juries are a great deal utilizing the non-unanimous option (Office of Public Defense Services, Apellate Divison, 2009).Too frequently, however, juries acquit contendly guilty defendants, convict obviously guilty defendants of much lesser offenses, fail to deliberate sufficiently, or fail to reach a verdict in cases with fire evidence.MethodologyThe data for this research were obtained through policy analysis such as precedent cases and constitutional laws from legal briefs. Quantitative data was constructed into charts to show amaze rates for murder, spirited rape and armed robbery in the year of 2007 and 2008. The charts also represent the headroom rate of those particular offenses and the percent change from 2007 to 2008. Additional states were included into the charts with Louisiana and Oregon to see if on that point is a engagement in arrest rates and clearance rate in the immediately surrounding states. All quantitative data was collected from the federal official dresser of Investigations Uniform detestation Report. Various case studies and professional person opinions were collected through scholarly Criminal Justice and Law daybook articles. The data begins from 1997 to 2009 because election time was approaching and this issue has been repeatedly laborious to be amended to reverse the non-unanimity rule in Louisiana and Oregon.DataThe following charts represent the arrest rates for violent crimes (Murder, Forcible Rape and Armed Robbery) in Louisiana and Oregon non-unanimous states and the immediate four surrounding state that require unanimity. Each given number was computed to show the percentages. federal dresser of Investigations Uniform abhorrence Report Arrest Rates 2007 maulFORCIBLE RAPEarm robberyTOTAL VIOLENT CRIMESLouisianaNon-Unanimous242 (3.0%)324 (4.0%)1,119 (14.0%)8,014MississippiUnanimous83 (4.6%) one hundred thirty-five (7.5%)545 (30.5%)1,789ArkansasUnanimous60 (2.0%)143 (4.9%)416 (14.2%)2,937TexasUnanimous759 (2.3%)1,947 (5.8%)7,593 (23.0%)33,309okehUnanimous183 (3.2%)319 (5.6%)793 (14.0%)5,665OregonNon-Unanimous82 (1.67%)294 (6.0%)1,173 (23.8%)4,938WashingtonUnanimous115 (1.5%)770 (10.1%)1,915 (25.1%)7,616NevadaUnanimous151 (2.7%)186 (3.3%)1,739 (31.1%)5,595IdahoUnanimous33 (2.3%)114 (7.8%)74 (5.1%)1,457California Unanimous2,022 (1.6%)2,141 (1.7%)21,064 (17.0%)124,293*Includes arrest rates for all ages (18 and younger and 19 and older)* shareages are locomote up to the coterminous factor*Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. solution Adapted by United States Department of Justice federal official Bureau of Investigations, September 2009.Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Report Arrest Rates 2008MURDERFORCIBLE RAPE gird ROBBERYTOTAL VIOLENT CRIMESLouisianaNon-Unanimous183 (2.0%)238 (2.6%)1,035 (11.2%)9,236MississippiUnanimous135 (6.9%)165 (8.5%)572 (29.4%)1,946ArkansasUnanimous118 (2.5%)194 (4.1%)623 (13.1%)4,749TexasUnanimous863 (2.5%)2,034 (5.9%)8,199 (23.9%)34,235OklahomaUnanimous one hundred sixty (2.7%)316 (5.3%)831 (14.0%)5,956OregonNon-Unanimous95 (2.0%)276 (5.7%)1,187 (24.5%)4,844WashingtonUnanimous104 (1.5%)675 (9.7%)1,637 (23.6%)6,943NevadaUnanimous11 (.17%)31 (.48%)369 (56.2%)6,516IdahoUnan imous14 (.98%)102 (7.2%)97 (6.8%)1,425CaliforniaUnanimous1,850(1.48%)2,088 (1.67%)22,391(17.9%)125,235*Includes arrest rates for all ages (18 and younger and 19 and older)*Percentages are rounded up to the next factor*Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. extension Adapted by United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigations, September 2009.The following charts represent the clearance rates for violent crimes (Murder, Forcible Rape and Armed Robbery) in Louisiana and Oregon non-unanimous states and the immediate four surrounding state that require unanimity.Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Report Clearance Rate 2007MURDERFORCIBLE RAPE build up ROBBERYLouisianaNon-Unanimous14.232.4141.7MississippiUnanimous7.135.698.2ArkansasUnanimous6.744.7106.7TexasUnanimous5.935.3162.2OklahomaUnanimous6.143.193.2OregonNon-Unanimous1.933.576.4WashingtonUnanimous2.740.693.6NevadaUnanimous7 .542.7270.2IdahoUnanimous3.338.515.5CaliforniaUnanimous5.824.2188.8*Per 100,000 persons*Populations are U.S. Census Bureau provisional estimates as of July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2007Source Adapted by United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigations, September 2009.Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Report Clearance Rate 2008MURDERFORCIBLE RAPEARMED ROBBERYOregonNon-Unanimous2.230.569.7WashingtonUnanimous2.940.196.9NevadaUnanimous6.342.4248.9IdahoUnanimous1.536.215.8CaliforniaUnanimous5.824.2188.8LouisianaNon-Unanimous11.927.9135.9MississippiUnanimous8.130.3102.6ArkansasUnanimous5.744.895.8TexasUnanimous5.632.9155.2OklahomaUnanimous5.840.2101.1*Per 100,000 persons*Populations are U.S. Census Bureau provisional estimates as of July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2007Source Adapted by United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigations, September 2009.Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Report Percent tack from 2007 to 2008 Clearance Ra teMURDERFORCIBLE RAPEARMED ROBBERYLouisianaNon-Unanimous-15.6-13.9-4.1MississippiUnanimous+13.2-15.0+4.5ArkansasUnanimous-15.8+9.2-10.2TexasUnanimous-4.9-6.7-4.3OklahomaUnanimous-5.2-6.6+8.4OregonNon-Unanimous+11.1-8.9-8.8WashingtonUnanimous+9.6-1.3+3.6NevadaUnanimous-16.2-.08-7.9IdahoUnanimous-53.8-6.2+1.8CaliforniaUnanimous-5.7-1.8-2.2*Per 100,000 persons*Populations are U.S. Census Bureau provisional estimates as of July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2007Source Adapted by United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigations, September 2009.FindingsThe following charts represent the averages of the data collected in percentages.Comparison of 2007 and 2008 Arrest and Clearance Rates**All averages were rounded to the hot tenths.Arrest and Clearance in 2007 and 2008 were fairly even within each state with the exception of Idaho. Idaho is the only state that shows a true come down in arrest from 2007 to 2008 with a trending increase in clearance.The Percent Change in Clearanc e Rate between 2007 and 2008Idaho had a major decrease in clearance rate which is a unanimous state and Oregon a non-unanimous state had the least decrease in clearance rateComparison of 2007 and 2008 Arrest and Clearance Rates**All averages were rounded to the nighest tenths.Louisiana and Arkansas has a small decrease in arrest rates from 2007 and 2008 but also has a decrease in clearance rate from 2007 to 2008. Overall there are no major differences from 2007 to 2008 in Arrest and Clearance.The Percent Change in Clearance Rate between 2007 and 2008Majority of the states had a decrease in clearance from the year of 2007 to 2008 meaning more defendants were being convicted of criminal charges. Mississippi had a minor increase in defendants not being convicted from 2007 to 2008. Overall, Louisiana had the highest decrease, which shows approximately 20% difference versus the non-unanimity states.ConclusionIn conclusion, the relationship between the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendme