A U.S. Supreme Court argument about whether states can convict defendants with non-unanimous juries evolved into a debate about precedent, an especially sensitive issue now that the justices will effectively contemplate the future of the abortion precedent Roe v. Wade this term.
Evangelisto Ramos may well go on to win his argument that his 10-2 Louisiana state murder conviction violates the U.S. Constitution, but the court needs to reckon with a 1972 decision that condoned non-unanimous convictions at the state level.
Early on in the Oct. 7 argument, Justice Samuel Alito brought up stare decisis—the Latin term signifying the ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.