Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–5924 
_________________ 

EVANGELISTO RAMOS, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL 
OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[April 20, 2020]

 JUSTICE GORSUCH announced the judgment of the Court 
and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts
I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, an opinion with respect to Parts
II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE 
BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, and an opinion with 
respect  to  Part  IV–A,  in  which  JUSTICE  GINSBURG  and 
JUSTICE BREYER join. 

Accused  of  a  serious  crime,  Evangelisto  Ramos  insisted
on his innocence and invoked his right to a jury trial.  Even-
tually, 10 jurors found the evidence against him persuasive.
But a pair of jurors believed that the State of Louisiana had 
failed to prove Mr. Ramos’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
they voted to acquit. 

In 48 States and federal court, a single juror’s vote to ac-
quit is enough to prevent a conviction.  But not in Louisi-
ana.  Along with Oregon, Louisiana has long punished peo-
ple based on 10-to-2 verdicts like the one here.  So instead 
of  the  mistrial  he  would  have  received  almost  anywhere 
else, Mr. Ramos was sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole.

Why do Louisiana and Oregon allow nonunanimous con-
victions?  Though it’s hard to say why these laws persist,