Should Jury Verdicts Be Unanimous for Criminal Convictions?

Struggles over convictions in criminal trials have been the source of drama played out on television and in the movies, especially dramatically in the classic film where Henry Fonda was the lone holdout, convincing his fellow jurors of reasonable doubt. In Louisiana and Oregon, however, he and one more person could disagree with a decision, and the rest of the jurors convict. But is this practice efficient or unconstitutional? The Supreme Court maintained in 1972, that the Constitution does not require states to insist on unanimity. Still the decisions made in 1972 in Oregon and Louisiana were said to be internally inconsistent and fractured. Experts maintain they ignored both the historical record and were based upon beliefs about jury behavior that research has now called into question. The Oregon law is now being challenged by Scott D. Bowen, an Oregon man sentenced to 17 years in prison for sex offenses. He was convicted of sex offenses he declares were made up by his 15-year-old daughter in order to gain her independence. He was convicted by a 10-2 vote for conviction, which was enough in Oregon. Oregon’s law is said to be in conflict with common law the Supreme Court states was assumed at the time the country was founded that jury convictions be unanimous. Oregon maintains, however, the common law at the time of the founding required a jury verdict to be unanimous is not mandated by the Sixth Amendment. Presently Mr. Bowen is supported by the American Bar Association, legal historians, the criminal defense bar and civil rights lawyers. According to the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, most felony convictions in the state are the products of non-unanimous juries. How that will affect these convictions will likely be of interest to attorneys, the courts and the Oregon public, especially if the convictions previously made are revisited.