Sixth Amendment — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Unanimity Denied: The Fight for Retroactive Justice in Edwards v. Vannoy

In the United States, every vote counts: especially in the hands of a jury. Unanimity in juries is essential in order to correctly deal the hand of freedom or incarceration to a defendant. This principle came under scrutiny in the case of Evangelisto Ramos, who was sentenced to life in prison despite two jurors declining to vote guilty due to reasonable doubt [in the prosecution's case]. Ramos appealed his case and this principle of unanimity was solidified when the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ramos v. Louisiana found that, in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, a guilty verdict in criminal cases must be unanimous. There was tension between this decision and the case of Thedrick Edwards, a black man who was found guilty and sentenced to a life in prison based on a 10-2 jury vote prior to the decision of Ramos v. Louisiana. In 2021, the Supreme Court’s decision of Edwards v. Vannoy found that jury unanimity cannot apply retroactively to court decisions. However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to retroactively require unanimous jury verdicts in Edwards v. Vannoy is unconstitutional—Edwards was denied the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury due to the erosion of civil rights at the state level and the Court’s failure to follow precedent in correcting past injustices. In addition to a lack of constitutional basis, Edwards v. Vannoy perpetuates racial bias by not allowing this retroactive appeal; non-unanimous juries are historically exclusionary towards African Americans, and unanimous juries provide a more even field by not allowing the voices of African American people go unheard if they are the minority of a jury vote. The right to have a decision by a unanimous jury was denied to Edwards, a denial that stands in direct conflict with the protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Media and the Right to a Fair Trial: Juror Impartiality in the Information Age

A 2021 study by Pew Research Center found that nearly 90% of Americans use the internet, social media, or smartphones regularly to access the news. [1] The proliferation of online information is particularly influential in high publicity cases—cases that involve terrorism or violent crime, garnering high levels of national media attention—in which juries may be skewed by the media they consume. In United States v. Tsarnaev (2021), the case of the Boston Marathon bomber currently on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court, the risks of media bias are especially clear. In Tsarnaev’s case and similarly high publicity cases, trial judges ought to exercise more rigorous voir dire questioning on media consumption in order to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a “trial by an impartial jury.”

Consequences of Plea Bargaining: In Consideration of the Rights of the Accused

As Americans currently look to reform the nation’s criminal justice system, with its high incarceration rates and immense racial disparities, plea bargaining is an important consideration. In a plea bargain, also known as a plea deal, the defendant agrees to plead guilty or “no contest,” in exchange for the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence that is acceptable to the defense. In turn, this allows the defendant to receive a reduced sentence. [1] A plea bargain is a facet of the American criminal justice system that initially became commonplace in the 1920s in order to expedite the trial court process. The prevalence of plea bargaining is constantly being reexamined as the United States reconciles constitutional principles and legal precedent with historic prejudices in its criminal justice system.