Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

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

19 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

isolated  by  later  cases  holding  that  two  additional  provi-
sions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to the States, 
see Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2) (Eighth Amend-
ment’s  Excessive  Fines  Clause);  McDonald,  supra,  at  791 
(plurality opinion) (Second Amendment), the project of com-
plete  incorporation  was  nearly  done  when  Apodaca  was 
handed down.  See McDonald, supra, at 765, n. 13. 

While the majority worries that Apodaca is inconsistent 
with our cases on incorporation, the majority ignores some-
thing far more important: the way in which Apodaca is in-
tertwined with the body of our Sixth Amendment case law.
As I have explained, see supra, at 15, the Apodaca plural-
ity’s reasoning was based on the same fundamental mode 
of analysis as that in Williams, 399 U. S. 78, which had held 
just  two  years  earlier  that  the  Sixth  Amendment  did  not 
constitutionalize the common law’s requirement that a jury 
have 12 members.  Although only one State, Oregon, now 
permits  non-unanimous  verdicts,  many  more  allow  six-
person juries.29  Repudiating the reasoning of Apodaca will 
almost certainly prompt calls to overrule Williams. 

C 

Up to this point, I have discussed the majority’s reasons 
for  overruling  Apodaca,  but  that  is  only  half  the  picture. 
What convinces me that Apodaca should be retained are the 
enormous reliance interests of Louisiana and Oregon.  For 
48 years, Louisiana and Oregon, trusting that Apodaca is 
good law, have conducted thousands and thousands of trials
under rules allowing non-unanimous verdicts.  Now, those 
States  face  a  potential  tsunami  of  litigation  on  the  jury-
unanimity issue.

At  a  minimum,  all  defendants  whose  cases  are  still  on 
direct appeal will presumably be entitled to a new trial if 

—————— 

29 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §21–102 (2013); Conn. Gen. Stat. §54–82; 
Fla.  Rule  Crim.  Proc.  §3.270  (2019); Ind. Code  §35–37–1–1(b)(2);  Utah
Code §78B–1–104 (2019).