Oregon Measure Nos. 302-303, Criminal Trials Without Juries Amendment (May 1934)
| Oregon Measure Nos. 302-303 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Criminal trials |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
Oregon Measure Nos. 302-303 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Oregon on May 18, 1934. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported providing that in criminal trials any accused person, with the consent of the trial judge, may choose to waive trial by jury and consent to be tried by the judge of the court alone. |
A "no" vote opposed providing that in criminal trials any accused person, with the consent of the trial judge, may choose to waive trial by jury and consent to be tried by the judge of the court alone. |
Election results
|
Oregon Measure Nos. 302-303 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
117,446 | 58.47% | ||
| No | 83,430 | 41.53% | ||
Aftermath
- See also: Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
In 2016, Evangelisto Ramos was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on a 10 to 12 jury verdict. He appealed his conviction to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing his conviction by a non-unanimous jury violated his federal constitutional rights. The court of appeal affirmed Ramos' conviction and sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review. On March 18, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in a 6-3 ruling, holding "if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court." In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Oregon Measure 2, which allowed non-unanimous verdicts in all criminal trials, except first-degree murder trials. Writing the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, "Courts in both Louisiana and Oregon have frankly acknowledged that race was a motivating factor in the adoption of their States’ respective nonunanimity rules." The Court’s majority acknowledged the potential number of cases challenging non-unanimous jury verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon but determined that the inconvenience and expense of retrial did not justify withholding the Sixth Amendment’s protections from state criminal trials.[1][2]
Ramos also overruled a 1972 SCOTUS case, Apodaca v. Oregon, which ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution required unanimous juries to convict persons in federal criminal trials, but that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend the requirement of unanimous juries to state criminal trials.[3][2]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Measure Nos. 302-303 was as follows:
| “ | CRIMINAL TRIAL WITHOUT JURY AND NON-UNANIMOUS VERDICT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-Purpose: Authorizing accused, with judge's consent, to waive jury trial, except in capital cases; verdict, except guilty of first degree murder, by ten circuit court jurors. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Support
Official arguments
The following arguments in support of Measure 2 appeared in the Oregon Voter Guide and were submitted by State Senator Ashby C. Dickson and State Representatives Frank H. Hilton and F. H. Dammasch:[1]
| “ | The laws of Oregon now prohibit the court from commenting on the fact that the accused in a criminal case has failed to take the witness stand and testify in his own defense, and the judge is also prevented from commenting on the value of the evidence introduced on behalf of the defendant no matter how flimsy the defense of the accused may be. Our laws also require that the evidence against the defendant must be so conclusive as to the culprit's guilt that the jury must be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt or to a moral certainty of that guilt before it is privileged to find a verdict of guilty. Twelve jurors trying, a criminal case must be unanimous in their decision before the defendant may be found guilty.
The proposed constitutional amendment is to prevent one or two jurors from controlling the verdict or causing a disagreement. The amendment has been endorsed by the district attorney's association of this state and is approved by the commission appointed by the governor to make recommendations amending criminal procedure. Disagreements not only place the taxpayers to the expense of retrial which may again result in another disagreement but congest the trial docket of the courts. The amendment provides that a jury of ten may return a verdict save and except in first-degree murder. A notable incident of one juror controlling the verdict is found in the case of State v. Silverman recently tried in Columbia County. In this case, 11 jurors were for a verdict of murder in the second degree. One juror was for acquittal. To prevent disagreement, 11 jurors compromised with the one juror by returning a verdict of manslaughter. This they were compelled to do to prevent large costs of a retrial. Disagreements occasioned by one or two jurors refusing to agree with 10 or 11 other jurors is a frequent occurrence. One unreasonable juror of the 12, or one not understanding the instructions of the court can prevent a verdict either of guilt or innocence. We believe that the people of Oregon will clearly see the reasonableness of the proposed change and vote favorably for this measure, which certainly is a step in the right direction.[4] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The following arguments in opposition to Measure 2 appeared in the Oregon Voter Guide and were submitted by State Representatives Richard Deich:[1]
| “ | It has been stated through the public press and otherwise that shrewd lawyers have been enabled to defeat justice because of the age-old custom of requiring a unanimous jury in criminal cases, by centering upon one, or more jurors perhaps and getting what is known as a "hung jury" and eventually winning the case or causing the dismissal thereof. But as a matter of fact, no lawyer need care whether it would be a 12 man jury, the court itself, a majority jury or a 10 man jury who decides the case, because the lawyer will take the cloth as he finds it and cut the suit accordingly and he will win or lose his case just the same; but to the citizens of our great country who have paid dearly to establish this 12 man jury, it is all important.
The particular amendment in question to section 11, Article 1 of the Constitution of Oregon, is objectionable for other reasons than the above. One objection that seems overwhelming to me is the fact that anyone charged with murder in the first degree which means premeditated with malice aforethought killing of a human being, is allowed the special privilege of no conviction unless 12 jurors unanimously agree; whereas, the small fry the embezzler, the second degree murder, the forger, the rapist and all lesser crimes, must take his chance on 10/12 jury. It would seem that it is putting' a premium on what our lawmakers and the public in general seem to believe is the worst criminal in the world. It would seem that the poet quoted above had this same idea in mind when he wrote his little known or heeded couplet. In practically 10 years experience as a deputy prosecutor in Multnomah County, Oregon, I cannot recall a single instance in my own experience where I regretted the fact that less than a unanimous jury could bring in a conviction in a criminal case and I tried a goodly number of cases. I can remember probably a quarter of a century ago when the district attorney was considered one of the best, if not the best, lawyer in the community; whereas I do not necessarily need to call your attention to the fact that now he is possibly considered one of the poorest if not the worst. This is not necessarily a reflection on the legal ability of a district attorney of a large district like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco or Los Angeles because as a matter, of course, he cannot try all of the cases or even the most important ones put he should be able to organize his force whereby he would be represented by able and competent lawyers as deputies. In other words, the greatest asset of a district attorney in a large community is executive ability. This, of course, would be somewhat difficult to secure without adequate compensation for said deputies, even though the district attorney was possessed of the necessary executive qualifications. I am against the amendment not because I feel it is an ill-advised move. It is a weak and ill-advised attempt to correct an evil that will be abortive because it will not get the results sought for. It is an attempt to repair the engine in your automobile by patching up a hole in the exhaust pipe.[4] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Oregon Constitution
A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the Oregon State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 31 votes in the Oregon House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Oregon State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oregon State Library, "State of Oregon Official Voters' Pamphlet," accessed November 18, 2013
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Ramos v. Louisiana, decided April 20, 2020
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedaoruling - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of Oregon Salem (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
