Louisiana v. Ramos was a landmark Supreme Court case in 2020 that addressed the concern with non-unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials. This case involved Evangelisto Ramos, who was convicted of second-degree murder with ten jurors finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and two jurors disagreeing. At the time of his case, Louisiana had a non-unanimous jury verdict law which allowed the agreement of just ten out of twelve jurors sufficient enough to enter a guilty verdict. As a result of this verdict, Ramos was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Ramos appealed to the state appellate court, who affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review. Ramos then presented the case…show more content… This argument was made to show his support in overruling Apodaca in this case. Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s decision that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials. He also elaborated on the history of the non-unanimous jury rule, where he emphasized how it originated in racism and discrimination. Choosing to explain the history surrounding the original intentions of the non-unanimous jury rule was imperative to consider whether or not the decisions made in the Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana cases were aligned with the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments in the Constitution. This is because any decision made with prejudice should be especially reviewed and reconsidered, since it is unjust in itself to make landmark decisions based on racially discriminatory ideologies. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion where he emphasized that reliance on precedent is an important consideration when deciding whether or not to overrule it. Justice Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justice Alito’s dissenting
