Apodaca v. Oregon
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due proces
Wikipage redirect
406 U.S. 404Apodaca v OregonApodaca v oregonEdwards v. VannoyIncorporation of the Bill of RightsJacob TanzerList of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger CourtList of United States Supreme Court cases involving constitutional criminal procedureOlan Jermaine Williams Vs. State of OregonRamos v. LouisianaUnanimityUnited States constitutional criminal procedure
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Apodaca v. Oregon
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due proces
has abstract
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 40 ...... by Ramos v. Louisiana (2020).
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
13,983,419
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,023,996,403
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Apodaca v. Oregon,
@en
Concurrence
Blackmun
@en
Powell
@en
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Brennan
@en
Douglas
@en
Marshall
@en
Stewart
@en
findlaw
fullname
Robert Apodaca et al. v. State of Oregon
@en
Holding
There is no constitutional rig ...... w did not violate due process.
@en
JoinDissent
Brennan
@en
Brennan, Marshall
@en
Marshall
@en
JoinPlurality
Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist
@en
justia
Litigants
Apodaca v. Oregon
@en
OpinionAnnouncement
OralArgument
OralReargument
Overruled
Ramos v. Louisiana
@en
oyez
ParallelCitations
Plurality
White
@en
Prior
ReargueDate
ReargueYear
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 40 ...... 9–3 did not violate due proces
@en
label
Apodaca v. Oregon
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
Robert Apodaca et al. v. State of Oregon
@en