Unanimous Verdicts

Question 1

In our criminal justice system, defendants have the right to a trial by jury. This right is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, specifically, the 6th Amendment. While the Constitution does set forth requirements as to the size of the jury, it does not require that the jury reach a unanimous verdict. A non-unanimous verdict is a verdict by a jury that is not the result of a unanimous vote. In Apodaca v. Oregon, the Supreme Court held that a 10-to-2 vote for conviction is constitutional. In Johnson v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that a 9-to-3 vote for conviction was constitutional. Given the defendant’s right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of requirement for a unanimous verdict may beg the question as to whether it is appropriate to allow majority verdicts rather than unanimous verdicts.

INSTRUCTIONS

For this discussion, consider the fact that the Supreme Court has discarded the argument that a less-than-unanimous verdict violates the reasonable doubt standard, stating that the term reasonable doubt refers to the individual juror and not the entire jury.

In your main post:

• Explore whether all criminal trials should require unanimous verdicts, using a related case as the basis for your position.
• Articulate two practical issues that might arise under unanimous verdict requirements.
• Describe the implications of non-unanimous jury verdicts as a criminal justice professional.

Question 2

Initial post

It is 1787. The Philadelphia Convention that was to revise the Articles of Confederation has met.
Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation the 55 delegates from 13 states that met in Philadelphia developed an entirely new document , the Constitution of the United States.
39 of the delegates signed the document. The national debate is now (1787)should the states ratify this new document so it becomes the “law of the land”?

If you were living in 1787 what would you support?
Would you be for the Constitution as a Federalist or would you be against the new document and side with the Anti-Federalists?

Explain your choice using facts from Chapters 5 and 6a and Module 6 to support your answer.
Make sure you use at least two specific reasons why choose to be for or against the new Constitution and explain your reasoning using evidence from Module Week 6..
No outside research is allowed.

History 108