Apodaca v. Oregon
Apodaca v. Oregon |
---|
|
Argued March 1, 1971 Reargued January 10, 1972 Decided May 22, 1972 |
---|
Full case name |
Robert Apodaca et al. v. State of Oregon |
---|
Citations |
406 U.S. 404 (more) 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L. Ed. 2d 184 |
---|
Prior history |
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon |
---|
Holding |
---|
There is no constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases. Thus Oregon's law did not violate due process. (plurality opinion) |
Court membership |
---|
|
Case opinions |
---|
Majority |
White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
---|
Concurrence |
Powell |
---|
Dissent |
Douglas, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
---|
Dissent |
Brennan, joined by Marshall |
---|
Dissent |
Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
---|
Dissent |
Marshall, joined by Brennan |
---|
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity even though federal law required that federal juries must reach criminal verdicts unanimously. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals, and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Thus Oregon's law did not violate due process.
Justice Powell, in his concurring opinion, argued that there was such a constitutional right in the Sixth Amendment, but that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not incorporate that right as applied to the states.
This case is part of a line of cases interpreting if and how the Sixth Amendment is applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment for the purposes of incorporation doctrine, although the division of opinions prevented a clear-cut answer to that question in this case.
Arguing the case for the state of Oregon were Jacob Tanzer and Lee Johnson; both would later serve on the Oregon Court of Appeals.
See also
Further reading
- Jacobsohn, Gary J. (1977). "The Unanimous Verdict Politics and the Jury Trial". Washington University Law Quarterly. 1977 (1): 39–57.
- Saks, Michael J. (1977). Jury Verdicts: The Role of Group Size and Social Decision Rule. Lexington: Lexington Books. ISBN 0669011002. NCJ 42103.
External links
- Text of Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) is available from: permanent dead link] Findlaw Justia
|
---|
|
|
---|
|
- Beavers v. Haubert (1905)
- United States v. Provoo (1955)
- Pollard v. United States (1957)
- United States v. Ewell (1966)
- Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
- Smith v. Hooey (1969)
- Dickey v. Florida (1970)
- United States v. Marion (1971)
- Barker v. Wingo (1972)
- Strunk v. United States (1973)
- United States v. Lovasco (1977)
- United States v. MacDonald (1982)
- United States v. Loud Hawk (1986)
- Doggett v. United States (1992)
- Vermont v. Brillon (2009)
|
|
|
|
---|
|
- Gaines v. Washington (1928)
- In re Oliver (1948)
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale (1979)
- Waller v. Georgia (1984)
- Presley v. Georgia (2010)
|
|
|
Impartial Jury Clause |
---|
| Availability |
- Callan v. Wilson (1888)
- Natal v. State (1891)
- Schick v. United States (1904)
- District of Columbia v. Colts (1930)
- District of Columbia v. Clawans (1937)
- United States v. Barnett (1964)
- Cheff v. Schnackenberg (1966)
- Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
- Bloom v. Illinois (1968)
- DeStefano v. Woods (1968)
- Frank v. United States (1969)
- Baldwin v. New York (1970)
- Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971)
- Taylor v. Haynes (1974)
- Codispoti v. Pennsylvania (1974)
- Blanton v. North Las Vegas (1989)
- United States v. Nachtigal (1993)
- Lewis v. United States (1996)
|
---|
| Impartiality | |
---|
| Facts found | |
---|
| Size and unanimity | |
---|
| | |
---|
|
|
|
Information Clause |
---|
|
- Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1868)
- Cole v. Arkansas (1948)
- Russell v. United States (1962)
|
|
|
|
---|
| Out-of-court statements | |
---|
| Face-to-face confrontation |
- Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934)
- Kentucky v. Stincer (1987)
- Coy v. Iowa (1988)
- Maryland v. Craig (1990)
|
---|
| Restrictions on cross-examination |
- Douglas v. Alabama (1965)
- McCray v. Illinois (1967)
- Smith v. Illinois (1968)
- Chambers v. Mississippi (1973)
- Davis v. Alaska (1974)
- Delaware v. Fensterer (1985)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986)
|
---|
| Right to present relevant evidence |
- Cooper v. California (1967)
- McCray v. Illinois (1967)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987)
- Olden v. Kentucky (1988)
- Michigan v. Lucas (1991)
|
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
| Choice |
- Chandler v. Fretag (1954)
- Morris v. Slappy (1983)
- Wheat v. United States (1988)
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States (1989)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez (2006)
|
---|
| Appointment | |
---|
| Constructive denial |
- Avery v. Alabama (1940)
- Ferguson v. Georgia (1961)
- Brooks v. Tennessee (1972)
- Herring v. New York (1975)
- Geders v. United States (1976)
- Perry v. Leeke (1989)
|
---|
| Conflict-free |
- Glasser v. United States (1942)
- Dukes v. Warden (1972)
- Holloway v. Arkansas (1978)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980)
- Burger v. Kemp (1987)
- Wheat v. United States (1988)
- Mickens v. Taylor (2002)
|
---|
| | |
---|
| | |
---|
|
|