Argument evaluation: Complicated retroactivity points divide justices in jury-unanimity case

Relist Watch: The final countdown

The Supreme Court heard a hearing on Wednesday in the case of Thedrick Edwards, a Louisiana man who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2006 for his role in a number of crimes. The jury that sentenced the Black Edwards disagreed. The lone black juror voted to acquit him. In April 2020, the Ramos v Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the sixth amendment created a right to a unanimous jury that would apply in both federal and state courts. The Ramos court was split on both the outcome and the rationale for its decision, and judges on Wednesday proved similarly split on the issue before them: whether their Ramos ruling is already applicable retrospectively to cases like Edwards’ final will.

Attorney André Bélanger argued for Edwards, explaining to the judges that there are two ways to claim that Ramos applies retrospectively. The first, he explained, is based on the idea that the 1972 Supreme Court decision in the Apodaca v Oregon case that states do not have the right to unanimous jury does not apply to states. Hence, the Ramos decision is not a “new rule” for the purposes of the 1989 Supreme Court decision in Teague v. Lane, which will set the framework to determine when new criminal procedure rules will be applied retrospectively to federal cases, review of the collateral. The second option, Bélanger continued, is that Apodaca was simply so wrong that it had to be overridden, so Ramos established the kind of “watershed” rule that is retroactive under Teague. “Both ways,” concluded Bélanger, “fix something that we all know is wrong.”

Only Judge Neil Gorsuch, draftsman of the Ramos court opinion, seemed to particularly agree with the idea that Ramos had not created a new rule. He stressed that the Supreme Court had long debated the unanimity requirement of the jury. And when Bélanger claimed that the sixth amendment always required unanimity, Gorsuch agreed: “I hope you are right.”

Much of Wednesday’s nearly 90 minutes of hearing was instead spent discussing whether Ramos created a “watershed” rule that would apply retrospectively, and what effect that could have if a jury unanimity requirement were applied retrospectively would.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan urged Bélanger to produce empirical evidence to support his argument that the jury unanimity requirement was a “turning point” rule in preventing “an unduly high risk of inaccurate convictions”. Kagan suggested that such evidence was “surprisingly sparse” and that the unanimity rule might allow more guilty to be set free rather than deter innocent people from convicting.

Other judges focused on the fact that since its Teague ruling, the Supreme Court has not ruled that a rule of procedure should be applied retrospectively, even in cases that included important rights such as the right to trial. Judge Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that there have been a long series of post-Teague cases where the court has refused to apply a new rule retrospectively. And before Teague in the DeStefano v. Finding that the right to trial does not apply to cases that have already become final, Woods compared the dissenting judges’ right to trial to the right to be represented by a lawyer – the same right that the Teague court considered listed the type of rule that would apply retrospectively. It appears that there would be an “asymmetry” if the right to a unanimous jury were applied retrospectively, but the right to trial was not, Kavanaugh noted.

Justice Samuel Alito described the investigation into whether the unanimity requirement is a “watershed” rule as “rather strange” and compared it to looking for an animal – like a Tasmanian tiger – that is believed to be extinct.

While some of her colleagues seemed to believe that the absence of any rules on the watershed since Teague weighed in on finding Ramos had created one, Judge Sonia Sotomayor seemed to hold the opposite view. She asked Elizabeth Murrill, the Louisiana Attorney General, what a turning point rule would be if the jury’s unanimous requirement was not there. Is the Supreme Court an exception, Sotomayor asked, that we will never use?

Gorsuch later reiterated Sotomayor’s argument in a question to Christopher Michel, assistant to the US attorney general who argued on behalf of the federal government as a “friend of the court” in support of Louisiana. Her argument, Gorsuch told Michel, is that the retrospective exemption for watershed rules might at some point have served a purpose, but it no longer does. But it’s hard to see, Gorsuch suggested, what might qualify under the exception if the jury’s unanimity requirement doesn’t.

The judges also tried to determine the real impact a decision in favor of Edwards could have on the criminal justice system in Louisiana, Oregon and Puerto Rico, which also allows for inconsistent judgments. Bélanger tried to assure them that the impact would be minimal. At most, around 1,000 inmates in Louisiana could prove that they had been convicted by a non-unanimous jury. And from there, he stressed, other groups of inmates – such as those who might soon be paroled – could not get a new trial. In the end, Bélanger said, the need for retrial would be limited to two or three additional cases per prosecutor.

Murrill opposed the idea that the new appeals and lawsuits “could be distributed to anyone who happens to be an assistant district attorney.” Michel added that there would be a “ripple effect” on federal inmates for those whose sentences in federal courts were based in part on state beliefs that could be overturned. Those numbers, Michel told the judges, could amount to “a few hundred”.

Two of the most conservative judges expressed skepticism that the court should consider whether the requirement of unanimity of the jury even applies retrospectively. Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to have doubts that the court even had the power to apply rules retrospectively. Alito also suggested that before deciding whether it was a watershed, judges should first decide whether the federal habeas corpus law would prohibit the application of Ramos to Edwards’ case.

By the time the hearing ended, both Gorsuch and Sotomayor, who had the majority in Ramos, appeared to be right on Edwards’ side, but it was not clear whether Edwards would be able to get the additional three votes he received would have to prevail. A decision in this case is expected by summer.

This post was originally published on Howe on the Court.

Posted in Edwards v. Vannoy, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended citation:
Amy Howe, Argument Analysis: The judges share complex problems with retroactive effects in the case of the jury’s unanimity.
SCOTUSblog (December 2, 2020, 5:50 p.m.),