Oregon Unanimous Jury Verdict for Criminal Prosecutions Amendment (2020)
| Oregon Unanimous Jury Verdict for Criminal Prosecutions Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Civil and criminal trials | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Oregon Unanimous Jury Verdict for Criminal Prosecutions Amendment (HJR 10) was not on the ballot in Oregon as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. The measure failed to pass in the Senate before the legislature adjourned its 2019 session on June 30, 2019.
This measure would have required the unanimous agreement of jurors, rather than just 10 of 12 jurors, to render a verdict in a criminal prosecution (regardless of whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty).
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Oregon Constitution
HJR 10 would have amended Section 11 of Article I of the Oregon Constitution and add a new section entitled Section 11a. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
Sec. 11. Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; provided, however, that any accused person, in other than capital cases, and with the consent of the trial judge, may elect to waive trial by jury and consent to be tried by the judge of the court alone, such election to be in writing; provided, however, that in the circuit court ten members of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, which shall be found only by a unanimous verdict, and not otherwise; provided further, that the existing laws and constitutional provisions relative to criminal prosecutions shall be continued and remain in effect as to all prosecutions for crimes committed before the taking effect of this amendment a jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty only by unanimous agreement.
SECTION 11a. (1) The amendment to section 11 of this Article by House Joint Resolution (2019) applies to crimes alleged to have been committed on or after the effective date of the amendment to section 11 of this Article by House Joint Resolution 10 (2019). The Legislative Assembly shall enact all laws necessary to implement the amendment to section 11 of this Article by House Joint Resolution 10 (2019). This section is repealed on January 2, 2051.[2]
Background
U.S. Supreme Court on non-unanimous juries for criminal trials
In Apodaca v. Oregon (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court 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][4]
The U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices were divided 4-1-4 in Apodaca v. Oregon. The two groups of four justices agreed that the Sixth Amendment applied to both federal trials and state trials; however, the first group concluded that the Sixth Amendment did not require unanimous juries for either federal trials or state trials and the second group concluded that the Sixth Amendment did require unanimous juries for both federal trials and state trials. Justice Lewis Powell, writing alone in the court's opinion, determined the court's ruling.[3]
Louisiana Amendment 2 of 2018
Voters in Louisiana approved Amendment 2 in 2018 in a vote of 64% to 36%. The amendment required the unanimous agreement of jurors, rather than just 10 of 12 jurors, to convict people charged with felonies.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Oregon Constitution
The legislative procedures for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot are outlined in Section 1 of Article XVIII of the Oregon Constitution. In order to get an amendment placed on the ballot, a simple majority vote in each chamber of the legislature is required.
The amendment was introduced in the House by House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson (D-36). The House passed the measure on June 20, 2019, in a vote of 56-0 with four Representatives absent or excused. The measure failed to pass in the Senate before the legislature adjourned its 2019 session on June 30, 2019.
| Vote in the Oregon House of Representatives | |||
| Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber | |||
Number of yes votes required: 31  | |||
| Yes | No | Not voting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 56 | 0 | 4 |
| Total percent | 93.33% | 0.00% | 6.66% |
| Democrat | 37 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 19 | 0 | 3 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Oregon Legislature, "HJR 10 (2019) full text," accessed June 28, 2019
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Justia, "Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972)," May 22, 1972
- ↑ Washington Post, "Non-unanimous criminal jury verdicts," April 24, 2018
 |
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 |
