j u s t c r i m

jury unanimity

The Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting post on Non-Unanimous Criminal Juries (Eugene Volokh • June 29, 2010):  "If I were a criminal defense lawyer in Oregon or Louisiana, I’d use McDonald as a reason to challenge those states’ practice of allowing non-unanimous criminal juries..."

"In Apodaca v. Oregon (1972), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity for a verdict — but that the Fourteenth Amendment does not carry this rule over to the states, and that even 9–3 verdicts are constitutionally permissible. The Jury Trial Clause is thus the one Bill of Rights clause that is neither completely incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, nor completely not incorporated. [emphasis added] (Recall that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, and has been applied to the states only through the Fourteenth Amendment.) ...

"the practical effect of incorporation"

SCOTUSblog - Analysis: state gun regulations and McDonald - The practical effect of incorporation [Matthew Scarola| Monday, June 28th, 2010]

"Today’s opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago means that for the first time, state and local governments’ gun regulations must comport with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right “to keep and bear Arms.” Although many state constitutions have a gun rights provision, McDonald has the potential to radically reshape non-federal firearms legislation.  In this post, we discuss McDonald’s likely effect on some of the most significant pieces of non-federal firearms legislation. The description of existing firearms laws is drawn primarily from a 2008 reportpublished by the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), which has a summary of firearms laws on its website..."

"While most state constitutions protect a right to keep and bear arms, state courts almost always deem state gun regulations “reasonable” and uphold them on that basis. In McDonald, the plurality stressed that its holding will not end “‘experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations.’” But it left undisturbed the Court’s strong suggestion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the D.C. guns case, that a more demanding test is appropriate..."  [RESTOFPOST]