Jury Verdicts in the criminal justice system

Introduction:

In our criminal justice system, defendants have the right to a trial by jury. This right is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, specifically, the 6th Amendment. While the Constitution does set forth requirements as to the size of the jury, it does not require that the jury reach a unanimous verdict. A non-unanimous verdict is a verdict by a jury that is not the result of a unanimous vote. In Apodaca v. Oregon, the Supreme Court held that a 10-to-2 vote for conviction is constitutional. In Johnson v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that a 9-to-3 vote for conviction was constitutional. Given the defendant’s right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of requirement for a unanimous verdict may beg the question as to whether it is appropriate to allow majority verdicts rather than unanimous verdicts.

Instructions:

For this discussion, consider the fact that the Supreme Court has discarded the argument that a less-than-unanimous verdict violates the reasonable doubt standard, stating that the term reasonable doubt refers to the individual juror and not the entire jury.

Competency 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.

• Explore whether all criminal trials should be required to have unanimous verdicts.
• Articulate potential practical issues that might arise under unanimous verdict requirements.
• Describe the implications of non-unanimous jury verdicts.

Special Instructions:

Create a 1 page essay in APA format according to the instructions above. Use 2 academically reviewed sources for references. Be sure to utilize in-text citations.