Supreme Court Term begins this week w/a number of critical civil rights issues on the docket. First up is Ramos v La, a case raising the question of whether the use of non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases is constitutional. The case will be argued tomorrow.
Only Louisiana and Oregon used nonunanimous verdicts. Louisiana’s use of it was steeped in the state’s racist history. It was an important victory last year when voters in the state passed a referendum ending the practice. usnews.com/news/best-stat…
But what of those convicted by nonunanimous verdicts before the new law went into effect? The question is whether the 6th amend right to a unanimous verdict is incorporated against the states (14th amend). We argue that it is.
Unanimous jury verdicts are now “fundamental to our system of ordered liberty.” But our amicus brief raises another critical issue -Louisiana adopted the nonunanimous jury verdict just as Blacks were permitted to serve on juries.
The racial history is clear. The adoption of nonunanimous jury verdicts was undertaken as part of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1898 in which ensuring white supremacy was an explicit goal. You can read about it in our amicus brief. @NAACP_LDF supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/1… 
The provision achieved the intended result. Studies demonstrate that African American defendants are more likely to be convicted by nonunanimous juries than whites. And the voice of dissenting African American jurors is often canceled out by whites on the jury.
How are the voices of dissenting African American jurors canceled out? In our brief we describe what happened in a case just a few yrs before Mr. Ramos’. Two African American jurors wanted to vote for manslaughter over murder & believed a white woman juror was inclined to agree.
Oral argument in the case is Monday. You can read our entire amicus brief here supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/1…
Grateful to the voters & advocates like @johnlegend who worked for passage of the referendum ending nonunanimous verdicts in La. But now SCOTUS must declare it unconstitutional w/opport for relief for those convicted under this racially discriminatory practice in La.
