Apodaca v. Oregon: Difference between revisions
Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) +prior history |
Added reference section. Will begin adding references. |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Apodaca v. Oregon''''', 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity even though federal law required that federal juries must reach criminal verdicts unanimously. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice [[Byron White|White]], affirmed the judgment of the [[Oregon Court of Appeals]], and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Thus [[Oregon]]'s law did not violate due process. |
'''''Apodaca v. Oregon''''', 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity even though federal law required that federal juries must reach criminal verdicts unanimously.<ref>''Apodaca v. Oregon'', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 406|406]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/404/ 404].</ref> The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice [[Byron White|White]], affirmed the judgment of the [[Oregon Court of Appeals]], and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Thus [[Oregon]]'s law did not violate due process. |
||
Justice Powell, in his concurring opinion, argued that there was such a constitutional right in the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]], but that the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[Due Process Clause]] does not incorporate that right as applied to the states. |
Justice Powell, in his concurring opinion, argued that there was such a constitutional right in the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]], but that the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[Due Process Clause]] does not incorporate that right as applied to the states. |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 406]] |
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 406]] |
||
== References == |
|||
{{References|date=March 2019}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
Revision as of 19:58, 10 March 2019
| Apodaca v. Oregon | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 1, 1971 Reargued January 10, 1972 Decided May 22, 1972 | |
| Full case name | Robert Apodaca et al. v. State of Oregon |
| Citations | 406 U.S. 404 (more) 92 S. Ct. 1628; 32 L. Ed. 2d 184 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Reargument | Reargument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | State v. Plumes, 1 Or. App. 483; 462 P.2d 691 (1969); cert. granted, 400 U.S. 901 (1970). |
| Holding | |
| There is no constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict in non-federal criminal cases. Thus Oregon's law did not violate due process. (plurality opinion) | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Powell |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan |
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity even though federal law required that federal juries must reach criminal verdicts unanimously.[1] The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals, and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Thus Oregon's law did not violate due process.
Justice Powell, in his concurring opinion, argued that there was such a constitutional right in the Sixth Amendment, but that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not incorporate that right as applied to the states.
This case is part of a line of cases interpreting if and how the Sixth Amendment is applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment for the purposes of incorporation doctrine, although the division of opinions prevented a clear-cut answer to that question in this case.
Arguing the case for the state of Oregon were Jacob Tanzer and Lee Johnson; both would later serve on the Oregon Court of Appeals.
See also
References
 |
Further reading
- Jacobsohn, Gary J. (1977). "The Unanimous Verdict Politics and the Jury Trial". Washington University Law Quarterly. 1977 (1): 39–57.
- Saks, Michael J. (1977). Jury Verdicts: The Role of Group Size and Social Decision Rule. Lexington: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0669011005. NCJ 42103.
External links
- Text of Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |