Opinion ID: 799033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver of Cunningham's right to a unanimous verdict

Text: Finally, Cunningham claims that a constitutional violation occurred during his first trial when the district court refused to permit him to waive his constitutionally protected right to a unanimous jury verdict. This question has created a split among the circuits. On one side is the rule adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Sanchez v. United States, 782 F.2d 928 (11th Cir.1986), which holds that a criminal defendant may waive his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict under very limited circumstances, so long as certain criteria are met. See id. at 932-35. Cunningham asks us to adopt that rule in this case. But in doing so, Cunningham concedes that the Sixth Circuit has come down on the other side of the split. In this circuitas in every circuit to consider the issue other than the Eleventhverdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous. See, e.g., Hibdon v. United States, 204 F.2d 834, 838 (6th Cir.1953) (holding that the right to a unanimous verdict cannot under any circumstances be waived and that it is of the very essence of our traditional concept of due process in criminal cases). This court has reaffirmed that fundamental rule at least once since 1953, see United States v. Smedes, 760 F.2d 109, 113 (6th Cir. 1985), and because the rule squarely decides the issue here, we do so again now. See Salmi, 774 F.2d at 689.