In the United States, every vote counts: especially in the hands of a jury. Unanimity in juries is essential in order to correctly deal the hand of freedom or incarceration to a defendant. This principle came under scrutiny in the case of Evangelisto Ramos, who was sentenced to life in prison despite two jurors declining to vote guilty due to reasonable doubt [in the prosecution's case]. Ramos appealed his case and this principle of unanimity was solidified when the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ramos v. Louisiana found that, in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, a guilty verdict in criminal cases must be unanimous. There was tension between this decision and the case of Thedrick Edwards, a black man who was found guilty and sentenced to a life in prison based on a 10-2 jury vote prior to the decision of Ramos v. Louisiana. In 2021, the Supreme Court’s decision of Edwards v. Vannoy found that jury unanimity cannot apply retroactively to court decisions. However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to retroactively require unanimous jury verdicts in Edwards v. Vannoy is unconstitutional—Edwards was denied the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury due to the erosion of civil rights at the state level and the Court’s failure to follow precedent in correcting past injustices. In addition to a lack of constitutional basis, Edwards v. Vannoy perpetuates racial bias by not allowing this retroactive appeal; non-unanimous juries are historically exclusionary towards African Americans, and unanimous juries provide a more even field by not allowing the voices of African American people go unheard if they are the minority of a jury vote. The right to have a decision by a unanimous jury was denied to Edwards, a denial that stands in direct conflict with the protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Read More
