In a series of rulings handed down on Friday, the Oregon Supreme Court found that hundreds of people in the state鈥檚 prisons who were convicted by nonunanimous juries have a right to a new trial.
The opinion offers clarity for people convicted in trials where not everyone on the jury agreed the convicted person was guilty. Until recently, Oregon and Louisiana were the only states in the country that allowed people to be convicted of crimes when at least one juror expressed doubt.
The state鈥檚 high court acted after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down nonunanimous juries in 2020 in a ruling known as Ramos v. Louisiana. The Supreme Court decision noted that the split jury convictions violate a person鈥檚 Sixth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.
After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, people in prison with split jury convictions filed appeals of their cases, arguing that their constitutional rights had been violated. One of those cases involved Jacob Watkins, a man . Watkins鈥� case was the leading conviction reviewed in the state鈥檚 highest court rulings on Friday.
鈥淲e should also understand that the imposition of the nonunanimous verdict law in Oregon for more than 90 years has undermined the integrity of our judicial system and reduced public confidence in our laws and our system of justice,鈥� Oregon Supreme Court Senior Justice Richard Baldwin wrote in Friday鈥檚 opinion. 鈥淲ith that understanding鈥攁nd with a measure of courage鈥攚e can learn from our history and avoid such grievous injury in the future to our civic health.鈥�
Both in Oregon and Louisiana, the nonunanimous jury laws had roots in racism. Oregon as a reaction to a case where a jury couldn鈥檛 agree on a murder conviction for a Jewish man. Louisiana took up nonunanimous juries during Jim Crow so white landowners freed post-slavery.
Baldwin acknowledged that history in his opinion, as well as Oregon鈥檚 extensive past of Black exclusion laws.
鈥淲hile Oregon did not approve nonunanimous juries as part of a brutal program of racist Jim Crow measures against Black Americans, its own voters 鈥� approved nonunanimous juries as a means of excluding nonwhites from meaningful participation in our justice system,鈥� the justice wrote.
Aliza Kaplan, a professor at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland who uncovered the racist origins of the law, called the ruling a 鈥済reat day for justice鈥� in Oregon.
鈥淲hile it took almost 90 years, the Court鈥檚 ruling goes far in correcting a historical wrong,鈥� she said.
Oregon's Supreme Court issued an opinion in a major case today, saying that the state should allow relief options for hundreds of people convicted by nonunanimous juries.
— Ryan Haas (@ryanjhaas)
In an opinion, Senior Justice Richard Baldwin extensively talked about OR's racist history. Story TK
Ryan O鈥機onnor, a Portland defense attorney who argued Watkins鈥� case, said he was pleased that his client and others would get a new chance to have their cases heard after being 鈥渃onvicted because of this xenophobic and racist law.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 amazing news. I鈥檓 just really grateful that the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the injustice that our clients and hundreds of other people suffered,鈥� O鈥機onnor told OPB.
It鈥檚 estimated that around 300 people are in Oregon鈥檚 prisons because of nonunanimous jury convictions.
The Oregon Supreme Court鈥檚 decision will no doubt have sweeping implications for victims, as well as backers of the law like many district attorneys in Oregon, who had argued nonunanimous juries created a more efficient justice system with fewer hung juries.
In a statement, the Oregon District Attorney鈥檚 Association said it would be 鈥渃hallenging if not impossible鈥� to take the nonunanimous jury cases back to court, many of which stretch back years if not decades.
鈥淲e must ensure that these victims, many who are women and children, need not face the terror of testifying once again before their abusers,鈥� the group said in a written statement. 鈥淭hey will need adequate notification and a meaningful role in all critical moments of these cases going forward.鈥�
The prosecutors said they plan to work with Oregon lawmakers to apply Friday鈥檚 ruling retroactively.
Last year, Democrats who hold majorities in the Oregon Legislature, that would鈥檝e vacated convictions for some, but not all people currently convicted by a nonunamious jury. At the time, many Democrats expressed concern about how their party might fare in November鈥檚 midterm elections as Republicans hammered tough-on-crime messaging.
The Oregon Department of Justice, which had defended the state鈥檚 practice of using nonunanimous juries as it sought legal clarity from the Supreme Court, called Friday鈥檚 decision a 鈥渃ritical piece of this complex process.鈥�
鈥淚t has been a long and winding road to get here,鈥� Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. 鈥淚 stand committed to eradicating inequities and ensuring fairness and impartiality in the delivery of justice in our state.鈥�
O鈥機onnor, the defense attorney, said he on some level understood why Oregon had defended the law since the 2020 federal decision to get legal clarity, but he still described it as frustrating.
鈥淚 have clients now who will have spent more than two years in prison having to fight through the courts to get to this remedy, and I think there were opportunities for the prosecutors and the (Oregon) Department of Justice to make the right call earlier,鈥� O鈥機onner said.
Copyright 2022 Oregon Public Broadcasting. To see more, visit .