Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 84.0

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

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

(2000)  (reliance  weighed  heavily  in  favor  of  precedent 
simply  because  the  warnings  in  Miranda  v.  Arizona,  384 
U. S. 436, had become “part of our national culture”).  In my
view, it weighs decisively against overruling Apodaca.

In reaching this conclusion, I do not disregard the interests
of petitioner and others who were convicted by a less-than-
unanimous vote.  It is not accurate to imply that these de-
fendants  would  have  been  spared  conviction  if  unanimity 
had been required.  In many cases, if a unanimous vote had 
been  needed,  the  jury  would  have  continued  to  deliberate 
and  the  one  or  two  holdouts  might  well  have  ultimately
voted to convict.32  This is almost certainly the situation in 
Oregon, where it is estimated that as many as two-thirds of 
all criminal trials have ended with a non-unanimous ver-
dict.  See Brief for State of Oregon as Amicus Curiae 12.  It 
is  impossible  to  believe  that  all  these  cases  would  have 
resulted in mistrials if unanimity had been demanded.  In-
stead, after a vote of 11 to 1 or 10 to 2, it is likely that de-
liberations  would  have  continued  and  unanimity  would
have been achieved. 

Nevertheless, the plight of defendants convicted by non-
unanimous  votes  is  important  and  cannot  be  overlooked,
but  that  alone  cannot  be  dispositive  of  the  stare  decisis 
question.  Otherwise, stare decisis would never apply in a 
case in which a criminal defendant challenges a precedent 
that led to conviction. 

D 
The reliance in this case far outstrips that asserted in re-
cent cases in which past precedents were overruled.  Last 
Term, when we overturned two past decisions, there were 

—————— 

32 Studies  show  that  when  a  supermajority  votes  for  a  verdict  near 
the beginning of deliberations, a unanimous verdict is usually reached.
See generally Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying, & Price, Jury Decision
Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups, 7 Psy-
chology Pub. Pol’y & L. 622, 690–707 (2001).