Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2016See Kennedy v. Louisiana, supra, In the seminal case cited by the majority, State v. Holmes, 263 La. 685 , 269 So.2d 207 (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court held, with strong dissents by Justices Bar-ham and Tate, that Louisiana’s procedural rules relating to capital cases, specifically the unanimous jury verdict requirement, still applied to cases in which the defendant could have been subject to the death penalty except for the United States Supreme Court’s invalidation of it in Furman v. Georgia. 2016See Kennedy v. Louisiana, supra, In the seminal case cited by the majority, State v. Holmes, 263 La. 685 , 269 So.2d 207 (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court held, with strong dissents by Justices Bar-ham and Tate, that Louisiana’s procedural rules relating to capital cases, specifically the unanimous jury verdict requirement, still applied to cases in which the defendant could have been subject to the death penalty except for the United States Supreme Court’s invalidation of it in Furman v. Georgia. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Apodaca v. Oregon
red
2 sentences2020In Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 406 , 92 S.Ct. 1628, 1630 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), a plurality of the Supreme Court found that the right to unanimity in a jury verdict was not a right “of constitutional stature” sufficient to justify a unanimous jury verdict requirement binding on the state courts. 2020In Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 406 , 92 S.Ct. 1628, 1630 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), a plurality of the Supreme Court found that the right to unanimity in a jury verdict was not a right “of constitutional stature” sufficient to justify a unanimous jury verdict requirement binding on the state courts. | 3 | 2016–2020 |
Lewis v. English
green
2 sentences2019Evangelisto Ramos v. State, 2017- 1177 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1300 , and cert. granted U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1318 , 203 L.Ed. 2d 563 ( 2019), to address the question of whether the unanimous jury verdict requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2019Evangelisto Ramos v. State, 2017- 1177 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1300 , and cert. granted sub. nom, Ramos v. Louisiana, 139 S. Ct. 1318 , 203 L.Bd.3d 563 ( 2019), is currently before the United States Supreme Court, which may address the issue of whether the unanimous jury verdict requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to . the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Herndon v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr.
neutral
2 sentences2019Evangelisto Ramos v. State, 2017- 1177 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1300 , and cert. granted U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1318 , 203 L.Ed. 2d 563 ( 2019), to address the question of whether the unanimous jury verdict requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2019Evangelisto Ramos v. State, 2017- 1177 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1300 , and cert. granted sub. nom, Ramos v. Louisiana, 139 S. Ct. 1318 , 203 L.Bd.3d 563 ( 2019), is currently before the United States Supreme Court, which may address the issue of whether the unanimous jury verdict requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to . the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Kansas v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2019Evangelisto Ramos v. State, 2017- 1177 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1300 , and cert. granted U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1318 , 203 L.Ed. 2d 563 ( 2019), to address the question of whether the unanimous jury verdict requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2019Evangelisto Ramos v. State, 2017- 1177 ( La. 10/ 15/ 18), 253 So. 3d 1300 , cert. granted, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1318 , 203 L.Ed.2d 563 ( 2019), to address the question of whether the unanimous jury verdict requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.