About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


54 Willamette L. Rev. 113 (2017-2018)
Patching the Exhaust Pipe: A Historical Analysis of Oregon's Non-Unanimous Jury Law in Criminal Cases

handle is hein.journals/willr54 and id is 119 raw text is: PATCHING THE EXHAUST PIPE: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF OREGON'S NON-UNANIMOUS JURY LAW IN CRIMINAL CASES ASHLEY GARCIA* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 113 II. OREGON'S NON-UNANIMOUS JURY RULE ........... ...... 115 A. State v. Silverman: The case that changed the face of Oregon's crinal jury system ................... 117 B. Dissatisfaction with Oregon's Non-Unanimous Jury Rule.................... .................. 118 C The United States Supreme Court Weighs In: Apodaca v. Oregon andJohnson v. Louisiana ............... 120 III. THE HISTORY OF THE UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT .............1 24 A. The Origins of the Juy System in England... ...... 124 1. The Origins of the Unanimity Requirement.............. 125 2. Early Discussion of the Unanimity Requirement...... 127 B. The Unanimous Jury Verdict in the United States ......... 129 IV. THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS IN CONTEMPORARY JUDICIAL POLICY ................................ ....... 132 V. CONCLUSION ..............................................1 34 I. INTRODUCTION The United States Supreme Court has long held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury verdict to be unanimous at the federal level, despite the fact that no unanimity requirement exists in the language of the amendment itself.' The majority of states have * Attorney at Law with DuBois Cary Law Group in Seattle, Washington. J.D., Lewis & Clark Law School; B.A. University of California, Davis. I would like to thank Professor Tomds G6mez-Arostegui for his guidance in researching and writing this article, and for a fascinating introduction to the world of legal history. I would also like to thank my family and 113