In Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that non-unanimous convictions for serious offenses violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Edwards v. Vannoy presents the question whether that holding applies retroactively to cases on federal habeas review.
We filed an amici brief on behalf of the MacArthur Justice Center and Phillips Black, Inc. to highlight that, whatever the Court’s view of the question presented in Edwards, the Court should make clear that states may offer a state postconviction remedy to individuals convicted under the now-unconstitutional practice of nonunanimous juries for serious offenses.
Specifically, the brief argued that federalism requires the Court to make clear that states would not be bound by any federal non-retroactivity decision in this case, since states may provide broader retroactivity protections as a matter of state law.
The brief also explained that the Court’s intervention—unless a decision is appropriately cabined—risks undermining the state courts’ independent consideration of retroactivity under state law.
Unfortunately, the Court issued a 6-3 decision holding that Ramos’s jury-unanimity rule does not apply retroactively on federal habeas review. In addition, the Court overruled the portion of Teague v. Lane stating that a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure would apply retroactively. The only silver lining is that in footnote 6 the Court explained that nevertheless “states remain free, if they choose, to retroactively apply the jury-unanimity rule as a matter of state law in state post-conviction proceedings,” along the lines suggested by our brief.