Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 67

6 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

to  three  Justices  in  the  majority,  these  courts  were 
deluded. 

This Court, for its part, apparently helped to perpetuate
the  illusion,  since  it  reiterated  time  and  again  what  Apo-
daca had established.  See Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, 
___, n. 1 (2019) (slip op., at 3, n. 1) (Apodaca held “that the 
Sixth Amendment requires jury unanimity in federal, but 
not state, criminal proceedings”); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 
U. S. 742, 766, n. 14 (2010) (Sixth Amendment “does not re-
quire  a  unanimous  jury  verdict  in  state  criminal  trials”); 
United  States  v.  Gaudin,  515  U. S.  506,  511,  n.  2  (1995)
(Apodaca “conclude[d] that jury unanimity is not constitu-
tionally  required”);  Schad  v.  Arizona,  501  U. S.  624,  634, 
n. 5  (1991)  (plurality  opinion)  (“[A]  state  criminal  defend-
ant, at least in noncapital cases, has no federal right to a 
unanimous  jury  verdict”);  Brown  v.  Louisiana,  447  U. S. 
323,  330–331  (1980)  (plurality  opinion)  (“[T]he  constitu-
tional guarantee of trial by jury” does not prescribe “the ex-
act proportion of the jury that must concur in the verdict”); 
Burch  v.  Louisiana,  441  U. S.  130,  136  (1979)  (Apodaca
“conclude[d] that a jury’s verdict need not be unanimous to
satisfy constitutional requirements”); Ludwig v. Massachu-
setts, 427 U. S. 618, 625 (1976) (“holding” in Apodaca was 
that  “the  jury’s  verdict  need  not  be  unanimous”);  see  also 
Holland v. Illinois, 493 U. S. 474, 511 (1990) (Stevens, J.,
dissenting)  (“we  have  permitted  nonunanimous  verdicts,” 
citing  Apodaca);  McKoy  v.  North  Carolina,  494  U. S.  433, 
468 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (the Court has “approved 
—————— 
1208 (2007), rev. denied, 345 Ore. 415, 197 P. 3d 1104 (2008), cert. de-
nied, 558 U. S. 815 (2009); State v. Mayo, 13 Ore. App. 582, 511 P. 2d 456 
(1973).  For Louisiana, see, e.g., State v. Hodges, 349 So. 2d 250, 260 (La.
1977), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1074 (1978); see also State v. Miller, 2010– 
718, pp. 42–43 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 83 So. 3d 178, 204, writ denied, 
2012–0282  (La.  5/18/12),  89  So.  3d  119,  cert.  denied,  568  U. S.  1157 
(2013); State v. McElveen, 2010–0172, pp. 95–96 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/28/11),
73 So. 3d 1033, 1092, writ denied, 2011–2567 (La. 4/19/12), 85 So. 3d 692,
cert. denied, 568 U. S. 1163 (2013).