The First Congress rejected that wording. There were no police, no professional prosecutors and we could actually look out accusers in the eye.
Until Reconstruction, jury unanimity was required for all criminal convictions, in all states and all federal courts.
The Justices disagree.
I will respond more thoroughly later, but one thing I want to iterate now.
I do believe absolutely in the concept of jury unanimity. I believe it is a strong protection to a defendant. I cannot support even 10-2 or 11-1 requirements. We should put the heaviest burden on the State to prove its criminal allegations against a defendant.
Unfortunately, too much crap going on here now to go in depth.
To quote from Gorsuch’s opinion:
…Yet, the State stresses, the Senate replaced “impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage” with “impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” and also removed the explicit references to unanimity, the right of challenge, and “other accustomed requisites.” In light of these revisions, Louisiana would have us infer an intent to abandon the
common law’s traditional unanimity requirement. But this snippet of drafting history could just as easily support the opposite inference. Maybe the Senate deleted the language about unanimity, the right of challenge, and
“other accustomed prerequisites” because all this was so plainly included in the promise of a “trial by an impartial jury” that Senators considered the language surplusage.
The truth is that we have little contemporaneous evidence shedding light on why the Senate acted as it did. So rather than dwelling on text left on the cutting room floor, we are much better served by interpreting the language Congress retained and the States ratified. And, as we’ve seen, at the time of the Amendment’s adoption, the right to a jury trial meant a trial in which the jury renders a unanimous verdict.
There is no explicit reference in the 6th Amendment.
Public (“professional”) prosecutors predate the Constitution in the United States - in fact, they predate the Revolution.
The language is clear.
Not in the west.
“The west” wasn’t part of the United States (or the colonies that predate it) at the time.
At the time, the Inquisition ruled the “west”.
It was in the 1880s.
We had all to many cases even with unanimous decisions and still got it wrong.
I am not aware of any state that entered the union without already having a system of public prosecution in place.
Are you talking about jury trials, or Supreme Court cases?
Jury…but again I didn’t read the link and just by going off Saf post in which I commented on. And he mention jury.
Ok, then you’re good. We are, in fact, discussing jury trials.
There is no doubt that sometimes the jury gets it wrong - but I’m not aware of any better way to do it. Perfect is the enemy of good.
DNA testing had change my views on few things. I hate to think how many we night have put to death that was innocent even with unanimous 12 decisions.
You’re not wrong.
This is the root of both my personal views on capital punishment, and my long-term financial support for the Innocence Project.
Interesting. I’m looking for the origin.
Of that saying. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it.