Non-Unanimous Jury Trials in Oregon
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Main(Difference between revisions)
This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.
by: Ctullos • September 29, 2014 • no comments
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<big>'''Introduction'''</big> | <big>'''Introduction'''</big> | ||
| − | In 1934 Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 2, joining with Louisiana to become the only states that allow non-unanimous jury verdicts in felony trials. The ballot measure changed the Oregon Constitution1 in two significant ways: first, it provided for defendants in non-capital cases to waive jury trial and be tried by a judge alone, and second, it allowed juries to deliver felony verdicts of acquittal or conviction by votes of ten-to-two, eleven-to-one, or twelve-to-zero. | + | <summary hidden>In 1934 Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 2, joining with Louisiana to become the only states that allow non-unanimous jury verdicts in felony trials. The ballot measure changed the Oregon Constitution1 in two significant ways: first, it provided for defendants in non-capital cases to waive jury trial and be tried by a judge alone, and second, it allowed juries to deliver felony verdicts of acquittal or conviction by votes of ten-to-two, eleven-to-one, or twelve-to-zero.</summary hidden> |
Ballot Measure 2 was a radical step away from the tradition of requiring unanimity in felony jury verdicts. It remains controversial today, and the United States Supreme Court’s docket reveals repeated recent attempts to challenge the constitutionality of non-unanimous felony verdicts. Yet the ballot measure itself was not the product of well-considered public debate. Instead, it stemmed from inflamed public reaction to a notorious 1930s trial – “the Silverman case” – that resulted in a publicly unpopular compromise verdict of manslaughter. | Ballot Measure 2 was a radical step away from the tradition of requiring unanimity in felony jury verdicts. It remains controversial today, and the United States Supreme Court’s docket reveals repeated recent attempts to challenge the constitutionality of non-unanimous felony verdicts. Yet the ballot measure itself was not the product of well-considered public debate. Instead, it stemmed from inflamed public reaction to a notorious 1930s trial – “the Silverman case” – that resulted in a publicly unpopular compromise verdict of manslaughter. | ||
Revision as of 17:04, August 9, 2014
Introduction
