“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature of the cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Please notes that the 6th Amendment to our Constitution says NOTHING about a unanimous jury verdict! A dictionary definition of “jury” reads as follows: ”A group of people sworn to hear evidence in a law case, and to give a decision in accordance with their findings.” Webster’s New World Dictionary. Even a dictionary doesn’t mention a unanimous verdict.
If a jury is not unanimous, the charged goes free. Strange? Do thousands of criminals go free because of a ‘hung’ jury, or one that is not unanimous? Probably, but is it fair? The Supreme Court is never unanimous, and five to four decisions are common. In a military tribunal, the majority of judges rules over the minority. In multiple judge cases such as appellate or federal courts, the decision is many times not unanimous. School boards, town councils, county meetings, corporate boards, and any court or hearing with votes from members, are rarely unanimous. At a dinner among friends, many times votes are taken about what to eat, where to go or in some silly vote, but they are rarely unanimous. In elections, the majority rules over the minority.
If the guilty are set free because of a non-unanimous jury, how about the innocent being convicted with a unanimous jury, unanimous because jurists can’t agree, and rather than stay forever arguing, they just give in and vote to convict? I’ll bet that has happened many times. Maybe, if a prosecutor does a bad job, it is reflected in a non-unanimous jury. If prosecution had gotten more proof or witnesses, it might have been unanimous, and a guilty person be convicted.
I’ve often wondered why on earth it is the rule, not of law, but custom, that a unanimous jury is necessary for conviction. No where else that I can think of, is a unanimous vote needed, for a decision to be made, other than a jury trial. It is illogical, unreasonable, and unfair to require a jury to be unanimous.
Don Stott- don@coloradogold.com