Crehan v. Louisiana

The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari (a request to review a lower court's decision) in a case regarding the right to a unanimous jury. The Court vacated the lower court's judgment and sent the case back for further consideration in light of its recent ruling that the Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes.

This decision ensures that defendants in Louisiana cannot be convicted of serious crimes by a split jury. It directly affects individuals currently in the legal system whose convictions were not based on a unanimous vote.

For decades, Louisiana and Oregon were the only states that allowed non-unanimous jury convictions. This case is part of a broader legal shift to ensure that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is applied the same way in both state and federal courts.

The Court issued a summary disposition (a decision without full briefing or oral argument) granting the petition and vacating the lower court's ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to have their case reconsidered because the Constitution requires a unanimous jury for a conviction.

The case will return to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit. Lower courts must now apply the requirement for unanimous juries to pending cases and certain appeals.

The dispute was whether the Constitution requires all jurors to agree on a guilty verdict in state criminal trials. The petitioner argued that a non-unanimous verdict violated his constitutional rights.

Defendants in Louisiana can no longer be sent to prison based on split jury decisions. This change may lead to new trials for many people previously convicted by non-unanimous juries.

The Court applied the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. This rule requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious crime.

The case moves back to the state appellate court in Louisiana. That court must now issue a new decision that follows the Supreme Court's requirement for jury unanimity.

This case reflects a trend of the Supreme Court ensuring that Bill of Rights protections apply fully to state governments. It eliminates a long-standing exception that allowed some states to use non-unanimous juries.