Way back in 2012 I wrote a post about an episode of the NBC Series Grimm, a show set in the state of Oregon, and the US Supreme Court has just handed down an opinion that reverses my legal analysis. First, a recap of the setup:
The villain of the episode is, unsurprisingly, an ogre. [Police officer] Nick’s partner Hank helped put [the ogre] in prison 5 years before the episode, and after escaping from prison the ogre comes after Hank. In the episode, Hank admits that he “misplaced” a faked security camera tape that might have established an alibi for the ogre. Hank’s reasoning was that the ogre had a really good lawyer, and if only a single juror felt that the tape established reasonable doubt, then the ogre would have walked.
I went on to conclude that, although a charge of aggravated murder would require a unanimous verdict under Oregon law, it would be possible for the jury to convict the ogre of a lesser included offense, such as manslaughter or aggravated assault, on a less-than-unanimous verdict of 11-1 or even 10-2. Thus, even if 1 or 2 jurors believed the alibi, the other 10 or 11 could have still convicted the ogre of a pretty serious charge. Oregon, where the show is set, was very unusual in this regard. It and Louisiana were the only states where that would be possible. (I apologize that my initial analysis missed Louisiana. I honestly don’t recall if I missed it entirely or if I had some reason for thinking that the lesser included offense trick wouldn’t work there.)
In any event, the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana that the U.S. Constitution requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of “a serious offense”, overruling the law in Oregon and Louisiana. The Court did not explain what a serious crime is, and it is not a well-defined legal term as far as I know, but I would guess that it would certainly include manslaughter or aggravated assault. Now basically any conviction the jury decided on would require a unanimous verdict, even in Oregon or Louisiana.
