Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

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

13 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

supra, at 16–26; Frampton, The Jim Crow Jury, 71 Vand. 
L. Rev. 1593, 1620 (2018).7 

In light of the racist origins of the non-unanimous jury, it 
is no surprise that non-unanimous juries can make a differ-
ence in practice, especially in cases involving black defend-
ants, victims, or jurors.  After all, that was the whole point
of  adopting  the  non-unanimous  jury  requirement  in  the
first place.  And the math has not changed.  Then and now, 
non-unanimous juries can silence the voices and negate the 
votes of black jurors, especially in cases with black defend-
ants or black victims, and only one or two black jurors.  The 
10 jurors “can simply ignore the views of their fellow panel 
members of a different race or class.”  Johnson v. Louisiana, 
406  U. S.  356,  397  (1972)  (Stewart,  J.,  dissenting).  That 
reality—and the resulting perception of unfairness and ra-
cial bias—can undermine confidence in and respect for the 
criminal justice system.  The non-unanimous jury operates
much the same as the unfettered peremptory challenge, a 
practice  that  for  many  decades  likewise  functioned  as  an 
engine of discrimination against black defendants, victims, 
and jurors.  In effect, the non-unanimous jury allows back-
door and unreviewable peremptory strikes against up to 2 
of the 12 jurors.

In its 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky, the Court rec-
ognized the pervasive racial discrimination woven into the 
traditional  system  of  unfettered  peremptory  challenges.
See 476 U. S., at 85–89, 91.  The Court therefore overruled 
a prior decision, Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), 
that had allowed those challenges.  See generally Flowers 

—————— 

7 Oregon adopted the non-unanimous jury practice in 1934—one man-
ifestation of the extensive 19th- and early 20th-century history of racist
and anti-Semitic sentiment  in that State.  See Kaplan & Saack, Over-
turning  Apodaca  v.  Oregon  Should  Be  Easy:  Nonunanimous  Jury  Ver-
dicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice Sys-
tem, 95 Ore. L. Rev. 1, 3, 43–51 (2016); Mooney, Remembering 1857, 87 
Ore. L. Rev. 731, 778, n. 174 (2008).