Ramos v. Louisiana

Case No. 18-5924 | La. Ct. App.

Preview by Michael Fischer, Online Editor

In November 2014, a New Orleans police officer found a woman later identified as Trinece Fedison stabbed to death in a trashcan outside of a church. A witness later told police that he had seen Evangelisto Ramos with the victim the night of the murder. When Ramos was brought in for questioning, he admitted that he and Ms. Fedison engaged in consensual sex on multiple occasions, including the night she was killed. DNA belonging to Ramos was also discovered on the trash can where the victim’s body had be found. Despite his assertions of innocence, Ramos was indicted by a grand jury on one count of second-degree murder. Following his trial, ten of twelve jurors voted to convict Ramos and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Under Louisiana law, the agreement of ten jurors is sufficient to find a defendant guilty.

Ramos appealed but his conviction was upheld by a Louisiana appellate court and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review of his case. The question before the United States Supreme Court is whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates against the states the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous verdict. When first enacted, the Court interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying only to the federal government. Through the process known as “incorporation,” however, the Court began ruling that many of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights applied to the states by operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On appeal, Ramos argues that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a non-petty offense and that this requirement applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Reply Brief for Petitioner at 2, 17, Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 (U.S. filed Sept. 6, 2019). In support of his contention, Ramos states that the Court has repeatedly determined that the common law preceding the Jury Trial Clause makes clear that a unanimous verdict is required for conviction. Id. at 2, 6–11. Additionally, Ramos argues that because the Jury Trial Clause requires a unanimous verdict in federal trials, it also requires a unanimous verdict in state trials since the Court’s due process incorporation jurisprudence holds that there can be “no daylight” between the way in which the amendments apply to the federal government and the states. Id. at 17.

The State of Louisiana argues that the Sixth Amendment’s Jury Trial Clause does not require a unanimous jury for criminal convictions since the Court has previously held that not “every feature of the jury as it existed at common law was . . . necessarily included in the Constitution.” Brief of Respondent at 11–13, Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 (U.S. filed Aug. 16, 2019) (quoting Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 91 (1970)). As a result, the State argues, there is nothing to incorporate against the states. Id. at 43. Finally, the State argues that there is no special justification for abandoning the Court’s precedent permitting convictions by a non-unanimous vote and that any such change would result in “significant practical problems” for the states. Id. at 10, 46.

Some Justices, primarily Justice Gorsuch, have expressed skepticism about continuing to litigate incorporation issues in the modern era. This case will serve as an indicator of whether the Court is willing to continue finding that the few remaining unincorporated protections in the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Last term, the Court decided in Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019) that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines was in fact one of those protections.