Jump to content

Apodaca v. Oregon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scai8 (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 11 March 2019 (Expanded "Concurrences and dissents" section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Apodaca v. Oregon
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 1, 1971
Reargued January 10, 1972
Decided May 22, 1972
Full case nameRobert Apodaca et al. v. State of Oregon
Citations406 U.S. 404 (more)
92 S. Ct. 1628; 32 L. Ed. 2d 184
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorState 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
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist
ConcurrencePowell
ConcurrenceBlackmun
DissentStewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
DissentDouglas, joined by Brennan, Marshall
DissentMarshall, 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[1] even though federal law requires that federal juries must reach criminal verdicts unanimously.[2] 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.

Background on non-unanimous jury verdicts

Federal law requires that juries return a unanimous verdict—one that all members of the jury agree upon—in criminal trials.[2] While most states follow the same requirement for felony convictions, at the time when Apodaca reached the U.S. Supreme Court, both Oregon and Louisiana did not require state court juries to return unanimous verdicts.[3] Oregon had created this rule in 1934 by state constitutional amendment.[4][5] Specifically, as long as at least 10 jurors on a 12-member jury agreed, the jury could render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.[3][6] First-degree murder cases in Oregon courts, however, still would require a unanimous jury verdict.[3] The Louisiana Legislature had passed a similar "Majority Rule" law in 1880, allowing for jury verdicts of 9-3.[3][7] However, in 2018, Louisiana voters passed a constitutional amendment that ended their practice of non-unanimous juries.[8][9] Now, Oregon is the only state that allows non-unanimous jury verdicts for felonies (other states allow them for misdemeanor offenses).[10]

Facts and procedural posture

Robert Apodaca, Henry Morgan Cooper, Jr., and James Arnold Madden, were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary in a dwelling, and grand larceny, respectively, in separate trials in Oregon state court.[11] All three juries returned non-unanimous verdicts: Apodaca and Madden's juries voted 11-2 to convict, and Cooper's jury voted 10-2.[11] They appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, arguing that they were entitled to have the jury instructed that jurors must unanimously agree to convict.[12] The Court of Appeals of Oregon, sitting in banc, affirmed their convictions. In doing so, the court relied on a previous Oregon Supreme Court case, State v. Gann, 254 Or. 549 (1969),[12] that had upheld the provision of the Oregon Constitution allowing the 10-2 jury practice as not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. [13] The Oregon Supreme Court denied review, and the three sought review in the United States Supreme Court.

In Johnson v. Louisiana (a case decided by the Supreme Court on the same day as Apodaca), a criminal defendant in Louisiana raised the same issue: whether a less-than-unanimous jury verdicts in state court criminal cases violates a defendant's constitutional rights.[14] Frank Johnson was convicted of armed robbery by a jury verdict of 9-3 by a Louisiana state court jury, which was permissible under Louisiana law. However, unlike in Apodaca, where petitioners argued that this practice violates their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment), the petitioner in Johnson raised Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims.[15] The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed his conviction, holding that a 9-3 jury verdict did not violate his equal protection or due process rights.[16] Johnson petitioned the U.S. Supreme court for review.

Both Apodaca and Johnson were argued before the Supreme Court on March 1, 1971, and reargued on January 10, 1972.[17] The Court decided both cases on May 22, 1972, and upheld the Oregon and Louisiana non-unanimous jury convictions.[17]

Concurrences and dissents

The four-justice plurality decided that federal and state juries should operate in the same way—and that the constitution does not require jury unanimity in either court system. The four dissenting justices agreed that federal and state juries should abide by the same rules—but argued that the constitution does require jury unanimity. Justice Powell concurred with the plurality opinion, determining that the Sixth Amendment mandated jury unanimity in federal trials but not in state trials because he found that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate that right as applied to the states.[18]

Because Apodaca and Johnson presented the same question, the Court decided both cases on the same day and some of the justices' opinions apply to both cases. In Apodaca, Justice White wrote the plurality opinion of the court, which was joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist.[19] Justice Stewart dissented, and Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall joined that dissent.[20] Similarly, in Johnson, Justice White wrote the opinion of the court,[21] and Justice Stewart filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall joined.[22] There were five other written opinions that applied to both Apodaca and Johnson. Justice Blackmun and Justice Powell each wrote a concurring opinion; and Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall each wrote a dissent (Justice Douglas's dissent was joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall; Justices Brennan and Marshall joined each other's dissents).[23]

See also

References

  1. ^ Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404.
  2. ^ a b Fed. R. Crim. P. 31.
  3. ^ a b c d Saack, Amy; Kaplan, Aliza B. (2017-02-28). "Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System". Rochester, NY. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ Voters' pamphlet, State of Oregon special election (May 18, 1934), https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl%3A64497/datastream/OBJ/view.
  5. ^ "Introduction and Measure Listings, 1902-2018," 2019-2020 Oregon Blue Book: Almanac & Fact Book, https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Documents/elections/initiative.pdf.
  6. ^ Voters added a provision that allows "that in the circuit court ten members of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty for first degree murder, which shall be found only by unanimous verdict." OR. CONST. art I, § 11.
  7. ^ Esman, Marjorie R. "Guest column: Non-unanimous jury verdicts steeped in racist past". The Advocate. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
  8. ^ Slobe, Erik. "Louisiana votes to require unanimous jury decision in criminal cases". www.jurist.org. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
  9. ^ Amended Louisiana Constitution, Art. I, § 17.
  10. ^ Kavanaugh, Shane Dixon (2018-11-07). "Oregon now alone in allowing non-unanimous jury convictions". oregonlive.com. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
  11. ^ a b Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 405–06.
  12. ^ a b State v. Plumes, 1 Or. App. 483, 484 (1969), aff'd sub nom. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
  13. ^ State v. Gann, 463 P.2d 570 (1969).
  14. ^ Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, Oral Argument,https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/69-5035.
  15. ^ Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356.
  16. ^ State v. Johnson, 255 La. 314 (1970), aff'd, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).
  17. ^ a b Apodaca v. Oregon, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5046; Johnson v. Louisiana, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/69-5035.
  18. ^ Saack, Amy; Kaplan, Aliza B. (2017-02-28). "Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System". Rochester, NY. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. ^ Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 404 (1972) (White, J., plurality opinion).
  20. ^ Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 414 (1972) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
  21. ^ Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 357 (1972) (White, J., opinion).
  22. ^ Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 397 (1972) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
  23. ^ For Mr. Justice Blackmun's concurring opinion, see 92 S.Ct. 1635. For Mr. Justice Powell's opinion concurring in judgment, see 92 S.Ct. 1635. For Mr. Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall joined, see 92 S.Ct. 1643. For Mr. Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice Marshall joined, see 92 S.Ct. 1650. For Mr. Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice Brennan joined, see 92 S.Ct. 1651.

Further reading

  • Aliza B. Kaplan & Amy Saack, Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System (February 28, 2017). 95 Oregon L. Rev. 1 (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2922181.
  • Gary J. Jacobsohn, The Unanimous Verdict: Politics and the Jury Trial, 1977 Wash. U. L. Q. 39 (1977).
  • Saks, Michael J. (1977). Jury Verdicts: The Role of Group Size and Social Decision Rule. Lexington: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0669011005. NCJ 42103.
  • Jury Trial—Unanimous Verdicts: Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972), Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), 63 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 500 (1972).
Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Apodaca_v._Oregon&oldid=887274529"