Exoneration Shows Need to Repeal Oregon's Nonunanimous Jury Law

In 48 other states, Joshua Horner would have never been convicted of sexually abusing a minor. His four-day trial in 2017 ended with only 11 of 12 jurors believing that the Redmond man committed the sex-abuse crimes that prosecutors alleged. Almost anywhere else in the country, that lone juror's doubt would have been enough to hold off a verdict and force prosecutors to bring a stronger case to prove his guilt.

But because Horner was tried in Oregon, one of only two states in the country [the other state is Louisiana] where a defendant can be found guilty by a nonunanimous jury, the holdout's vote didn't matter. Horner was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison.

That could have been the end of the story. But luckily for Horner, both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Innocence Project took a closer look at his case, as Oregon Public Broadcasting's Emily Cureton reported. After the appeals court ordered a new trial and the Innocence Project discredited key testimony from the victim, the Deschutes County district attorney dismissed the charges against Horner and apologized for using "untrue evidence" against him. Horner, who spent 18 months in prison, is now a free man.  (Oregon Live, September 23, 2018)
--

In two cases heard together in 1972, Apodaca v Oregon and Johnson v Louisiana, the Court considered the constitutionality of state laws that permitted criminal defendants to be convicted by less-than-unanimous votes.  (Oregon allowed convictions on 10 to 2 votes, while Louisiana went further and allowed convictions on votes of 9 to 3).  The Court, voting 5 to 4, upheld both state laws even though five justices clearly stated their beliefs that unanimity was required by the Sixth Amendment.  The odd result occurred because Justice Powell, concurring in both cases, concludes that the Sixth Amendment imposes greater requirements on the federal government than the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporating the basic Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, imposes on the states. 

The Court's conclusion in Apodaca and Johnson adopted reasoning similar to that used in Williams v Florida: the right to a unanimous jury verdict might have been the common expectation at the time the Bill of Rights was  adopted, but the First Congress rejected language that would have made the unanimity requirement specific.  A concurring opinion by Justice Blackmun suggests that he would have a constitutional problem with 8 to 4 or 7 to 5 verdicts.  The four dissenting justices argued that the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was unconstitutionally weakened by the states' laws allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases.

Operating in Hostile and Non-Permissive Environments:
A Survival and Resource Guide for Those Who Go in Harm’s Way

 

Military personnel deployed to a combat area, their supporting contractors overseas, government civilian employees overseas, non-government organizations (NGOs), journalists working on international stories, businesses attempting to establish a foothold in developing countries, and individual travelers to remote areas of the world can all find themselves in hostile and non-permissive environments. This guide covers a broad range of subjects that are intended to aid individuals, living and working in dangerous areas, in being safer in their daily lives and in being better able to protect themselves and survive in case of an emergency, disaster, or hostile action.