Skip to Content
Crime And Courts

Oregon advocates to keep fighting past non-unanimous jury convictions, despite ruling

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Advocates for over 200 people found guilty of crimes by Oregon juries that weren't unanimous say they’ll keep fighting to have the convictions vacated, despite Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that they don’t need to be retried, even after it barred the practice a year ago.

Oregon and Louisiana were the only two states that had allowed convictions by non-unanimous juries.

The Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland said it will keep working on behalf of those who have exhausted all their appeals.

Oregon's attorney general said her office will review every case that's presented.


News release from Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum:

AG Rosenblum Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Edwards v. Vannoy

SALEM, OREGON—Statement from Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum on today’s United State Supreme Court decision in Edwards v.Vannoy:

“This morning the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Edwards v.Vannoy, ruling on the issue of whether the right to a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases (announced last year in Ramos v. Louisiana) applies to older cases where final judgments have already been entered. The Court ruled that under federal law the right to a unanimous jury for serious criminal offenses applies to new cases going forward and cases currently on appeal, but does not require the retrial of criminal convictions already final when Ramos was decided.

“My office remains committed to reviewing every case presented to us that involves a request for a new trial. We are carefully reviewing the Edwards decision, and will be working expeditiously on a plan for addressing these cases going forward. 

“It is my sincere hope to work collaboratively with the courts, prosecutors, defendants and their defense counsel, crime victims, the criminal and racial justice advocacy community, as well as the legislature, to ensure these cases are given full and fair consideration. 

We at the Oregon Department of Justice remain dedicated to the goals of equal access to justice and to applying the lens of justice, equity and fairness to all matters that we are involved in.”

Government-politics / News / Oregon-Northwest / Top Stories

The Associated Press

Comments

3 Comments

  1. “My office remains committed to reviewing every case presented to us that involves a request for a new trial. We are carefully reviewing the Edwards decision, and will be working expeditiously on a plan for addressing these cases going forward.

    It is my sincere hope to work collaboratively with the courts, prosecutors, defendants and their defense counsel, crime victims, the criminal and racial justice advocacy community, as well as the legislature, to ensure these cases are given full and fair consideration.”

    In other words, she has no intention of enforcing the law.

  2. No, “the law” doesn’t require new trials for fully-concluded prior convictions by divided jury. While your suggestion that she won’t really re-open such cases may be correct, “the law” doesn’t require that she does so.

Leave a Reply

Skip to content