Apodaca v. Oregon case brief summary
406 U.S. 404 (1972)
CASE FACTS
Petitioners were convicted in a state court of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary in a dwelling, and grand larceny upon less than unanimous jury verdicts. They were convicted by jury votes of 11 to 1 and 10 to 2, and the convictions were affirmed in their state court appeals.Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in which they sought review of their convictions on the grounds that the less than unanimous verdicts violated their right to a trial by jury under U.S Constitutional Amendment VI.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court affirmed petitioners' convictions and held that U.S. Constitutional amend VI did not require a conviction by a unanimous verdict.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court affirmed petitioners' convictions of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary in a dwelling, and grand larceny upon less than unanimous jury verdicts. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment did not require that petitioners be convicted by unanimous jury verdicts.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
406 U.S. 404 (1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari seeking review of their state court convictions for
assault with a deadly weapon, burglary in a dwelling, and grand
larceny upon jury verdicts that were not unanimous. Petitioners
contended that their convictions by less than unanimous verdicts
violated their right to a trial by jury under U.S.
Constitutional Amendment VI.CASE FACTS
Petitioners were convicted in a state court of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary in a dwelling, and grand larceny upon less than unanimous jury verdicts. They were convicted by jury votes of 11 to 1 and 10 to 2, and the convictions were affirmed in their state court appeals.Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in which they sought review of their convictions on the grounds that the less than unanimous verdicts violated their right to a trial by jury under U.S Constitutional Amendment VI.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court affirmed petitioners' convictions and held that U.S. Constitutional amend VI did not require a conviction by a unanimous verdict.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court affirmed petitioners' convictions of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary in a dwelling, and grand larceny upon less than unanimous jury verdicts. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment did not require that petitioners be convicted by unanimous jury verdicts.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment