Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

verdicts by less than a unanimous jury,” citing Apodaca).

Consistent  with  these  statements  of  the  governing  law,
whenever defendants convicted by non-unanimous verdicts
sought  review  in  this  Court  and  asked  that  Apodaca  be 
overruled, the Court denied those requests—without a sin-
gle registered dissent.10  Even the legal academy, never shy 
about  puncturing  misconceptions,  was  taken  in.11    Every-
body thought Apodaca was a precedent.  But, according to
three of the Justices in the majority, everybody was fooled. 
Apodaca, the precedent, was a mirage.  Can this be true? 

No,  it  cannot.  The  idea  that  Apodaca  was  a  phantom
precedent  defies  belief.    And  it  certainly  disserves  im-
portant  objectives  that  stare  decisis  exists  to  promote,  in-
cluding evenhandedness, predictability, and the protection
of legitimate reliance.  See, e.g., Gamble v. United States, 
587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019); Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 

—————— 

10 See, e.g., Magee v. Louisiana, 585 U. S. ___ (2018); Sims v. Louisi-
ana, 584 U. S. ___ (2018); Baumberger v. Louisiana, 583 U. S. ___ (2017); 
Jackson v. Louisiana, 572 U. S. 1088 (2014); McElveen v. Louisiana, 568 
U. S. 1163 (2013); Miller v. Louisiana, 568 U. S. 1157 (2013); Bowen v. 
Oregon,  558  U. S.  815  (2009);  Lee  v.  Louisiana,  555  U. S.  823  (2008); 
McIntyre  v.  Louisiana,  449  U. S.  871  (1980);  Hodges  v.  Louisiana,  434 
U. S. 1074 (1978).  On June 7, 1972, shortly after Apodaca was handed 
down, the Court denied certiorari in a number of cases asking the Court
to recognize a right to unanimity in state jury trials.  Blevins v. Oregon, 
406  U. S.  972;  Martinka  v.  Oregon,  406  U. S.  973;  Andrews  v.  Oregon, 
406 U. S. 973; Planck v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 973; Riddell v. Oregon, 406 
U. S. 973; Mitchell v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 973; Atkison v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 
973;  Temple  v.  Oregon,  406  U. S.  973;  Davis  v.  Oregon,  406  U. S.  974; 
O’Dell v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 974; Miller v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 974. 

Contrary to the majority opinion, I am not arguing that the denial of 
certiorari is precedential.  See ante, at 19, n. 56.  My point, instead, is
that the Court’s pattern of denying review in cases presenting the ques-
tion whether unanimity is required in state trials is evidence that this 
Court regarded Apodaca as a precedent. 

11 D.  Rudstein,  C.  Erlinder,  &  D.  Thomas,  3  Criminal  Constitutional 
Law §14.03[3] (2019); W. LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, 6 Crimi-
nal  Procedure  §22.1(e)  (2015);  W.  Rich,  2  Modern  Constitutional  Law 
§30:27 (2011).