481 P.3d 1286
Or.2021Background
- Relator Michael Ross faced consolidated criminal charges (including murder) in Washington County; jury trial was pending.
- Oregon law (Or. Const. Art I, §11 and ORS 136.450) permits nonunanimous jury verdicts (10-2) for most crimes, including nonunanimous acquittals.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the trial court concluded Ramos required unanimity for both convictions and acquittals and ordered a unanimity-for-acquittal instruction.
- Both relator and the State asked the trial court to allow a 10-2 acquittal instruction; the trial court nonetheless required unanimity for acquittal and encouraged relator to seek mandamus.
- Relator petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus; the State waived participation. The Oregon Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ directing the trial court to instruct that guilt requires unanimity but acquittal may be 11-1 or 10-2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of mandamus | State waived; no opposition to immediate review | Mandamus is appropriate because a misinstruction on acquittal unanimity can cause irreparable harm (e.g., mistrial that forecloses an acquittal) | Mandamus was appropriate given the risk that a unanimity instruction for acquittal could cause nonremediable harm |
| Whether Ramos invalidated Oregon's nonunanimous acquittals | Trial court: Ramos and concurring opinions condemned Oregon's nonunanimous rules and effectively relegated them to the "dustbin," so nonunanimous acquittals are invalid | Ross: Ramos holds that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity for convictions only; Ramos did not address or invalidate state-authorized nonunanimous acquittals | Court held Ramos did not invalidate nonunanimous acquittals; Oregon law still permits 10-2 or 11-1 acquittals while Ramos requires unanimous convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. _ (2020) (held Sixth Amendment requires unanimous guilty verdicts; overruled Apodaca)
- Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) (plurality upheld nonunanimous convictions; later abrogated by Ramos)
- Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) (Sixth Amendment does not prohibit race-based peremptory strikes)
- State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 (2020) (Oregon court acknowledging Ramos requires unanimity for convictions)
- State ex rel Dewberry v. Kulongoski, 346 Or 260 (2009) (discussion of what constitutes a "plain" remedy for mandamus)