Apodaca v. Oregon
406 U.S. 404, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 56, 32 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's right to a trial by jury, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not require a unanimous jury verdict for conviction in non-capital state criminal cases.
Facts:
- Robert Apodaca was accused of committing assault with a deadly weapon in Oregon.
- Henry Morgan Cooper, Jr., was accused of committing burglary in a dwelling in Oregon.
- James Arnold Madden was accused of committing grand larceny in Oregon.
- At the time of the alleged offenses, an Oregon state law allowed for convictions in non-capital criminal cases with the agreement of at least 10 of the 12 jurors.
Procedural Posture:
- Apodaca, Cooper, and Madden were separately tried and convicted in Oregon state trial courts by non-unanimous juries.
- Apodaca and Madden were convicted by 11-1 votes, and Cooper was convicted by a 10-2 vote.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions, arguing they violated the Sixth Amendment.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The Supreme Court of Oregon, the state's highest court, denied review.
- The defendants (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law permitting conviction by a less-than-unanimous jury in a non-capital criminal case violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A state law permitting conviction by a less-than-unanimous jury does not violate the Sixth Amendment as applied to the states. The court reasoned that the history of the Sixth Amendment's framing is inconclusive on the unanimity requirement, as the Framers explicitly considered and rejected language that would have mandated it. The essential function of a jury is to interpose the commonsense judgment of a group of laymen between the accused and the state to prevent government oppression. The Court found that juries voting 10-2 or 11-1 can still perform this function effectively. The argument that unanimity is required to give substance to the reasonable-doubt standard is invalid, as that standard is rooted in Due Process, not the Sixth Amendment. Finally, the Court rejected the idea that unanimity is necessary to protect the viewpoints of minority groups on a jury, stating that the Constitution only forbids systematic exclusion of groups from jury service, not guaranteeing that a minority viewpoint can veto a verdict.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
Yes. A state law permitting non-unanimous verdicts violates the Sixth Amendment as applied to the states. The dissent argues that the Court's decision in Duncan v. Louisiana held that the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial is wholly applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It has been universally understood for nearly a century of jurisprudence that a unanimous verdict is an essential and indispensable element of a Sixth Amendment jury trial. Therefore, if the Sixth Amendment's jury trial right applies to the states, and that right includes unanimity, states must be required to have unanimous verdicts. The majority's decision breaks with long-settled precedent without justification.
Analysis:
This decision established a dual-track system for jury unanimity in the United States, requiring it in federal criminal trials but permitting states to allow non-unanimous verdicts. The case represented a form of 'selective incorporation,' where a feature of a Bill of Rights protection was not deemed fundamental enough to be applied to the states. This created a significant jurisdictional split in the application of a core criminal procedure right, a precedent that stood for nearly 50 years until it was expressly overturned by the Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), which finally incorporated the unanimity requirement against the states.
