Edwards v. Vannoy

Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a person accused of criminal charges must be tried by a jury. Federal laws required the jury to come to a unanimous decision to achieve conviction, but states had been free to adapt their own requirements for conviction based on the 1972 case Apodaca v. Oregon. All but two states adopted the same unanimous jury conviction requirements as federal law; only Louisiana and Oregon allowed for majority jury votes to convict, as well as the Puerto Rico territory. In 2019, Louisiana altered its laws to require a unanimous jury conviction.[1]

Ramos v. Louisiana was brought to the Supreme Court to challenge the Louisiana jury-majority conviction law prior to its change on the basis it was a Jim Crow law that allowed for racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision for Ramos that the Sixth Amendment was an incorporated right to the states, and that the Louisiana and Oregon allowance for non-unanimous jury convictions was unconstitutional, overturning the Apodaca v. Oregon ruling. The decision had split across the typical ideological lines of the Justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Elana Kagan dissenting.[2][3]

In the present case, Thedrick Edwards was an African-American that was convicted in 2007 in Louisiana on charges of rape, armed robbery, and kidnapping. The jury convictions were all non-unanimous, and Edwards had claimed that the state had manipulated jury selection to minimize the minority representation on the jury; the lone black juror had voted against any convictions.[4] Edwards had spent the intervening years challenging his conviction on the basis that Louisiana's non-unanimous jury conviction laws were unconstitutional and had petitioned to the Supreme Court prior to their Ramos decision on the same questions that Ramos had presented. Upon the Ramos ruling in April 2020, Edwards changed his petition to the Court ask whether the Ramos decision should apply retroactively.

The Court granted certaorari to Edwards' revised petition on the retroactivity of the Ramos decision in May 2020.[5]

Oral arguments were heard on December 2, 2020 via teleconference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Observers found that the Justices were split over the retroactive application of their decisions. While most Supreme Court decision do not have retroactive applications, certain decisions have involved certain "watershed" rights to require retroactive application, such as the right to an attorney decided by Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335 (1963)); the ability to apply decisions retroactively to cases involving watershed rights had been defined in principle in Teague v. Lane (489 U.S. 288 (1989)) but the Justices were unsure if there was a practical test to determine what are watershed rights.[4][6]

• Text of Edwards v. Vannoy is available from:  Oyez (oral argument audio)