Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

Opinion of the Court 

otherwise,  there  would  have  been  no  reason  to  write  it 
down.  Nor would it have made any sense to spell out the 
places from which jurors should be drawn if their powers as
jurors could be freely abridged by statute.  Imagine a con-
stitution that allowed a “jury trial” to mean nothing but a 
single person rubberstamping convictions without hearing 
any  evidence—but  simultaneously  insisting  that  the  lone
juror come from a specific judicial district “previously ascer-
tained by law.”  And if that’s not enough, imagine a consti-
tution that included the same hollow guarantee twice—not 
only in the Sixth Amendment, but also in Article III.8  No: 
The text and structure of the Constitution clearly suggest
that  the  term  “trial  by  an  impartial  jury”  carried  with  it 
some meaning about the content and requirements of a jury 
trial. 

One of these requirements was unanimity.  Wherever we 
might look to determine what the term “trial by an impar-
tial jury trial” meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s 
adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in 
the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon af-
terward—the answer is unmistakable.  A jury must reach a
unanimous verdict in order to convict. 

The  requirement  of  juror  unanimity  emerged  in  14th-
century England and was soon accepted as a vital right pro-
tected  by  the  common  law.9   As  Blackstone  explained,  no
person could be found guilty of a serious crime unless “the 
truth of every accusation . . . should . . . be confirmed by the
unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors,
indifferently  chosen,  and  superior  to  all  suspicion.”10
 A 

—————— 

8 See Art. III, §2. 
9 See J. Thayer, Evidence at the Common Law 86–90 (1898) (Thayer); 
W. Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury 200 (J. Morgan ed., 2d ed. 1875); 1
W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 318 (rev. 7th ed. 1956); Smith,
The Historical and Constitutional Contexts of Jury Reform, 25 Hofstra 
L. Rev. 377, 397 (1996). 

10 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 343 (1769).