Moreover, there is one thing why votes of the jurors are carefully considered by the Supreme Court in case controversies regarding it arise. It was found out for the long years that jurors sometimes receive bribes just to alter decisions of cases (Glasser, 2008, p. 1). To prove that, it is presented that the mere truth that three jurors voted just to acquit a defendant does not in itself show that, had the nine jurors of the popular attended further to prove the evidence, all or any of them would have developed a reasonable doubt about guilt (Glasser, 2008, p.
1). However, we have no evidences for accepting that majority jurors, aware of their duty and authority over the liberty of the defendant, would simply reject to hear to arguments showed to them in favour of acquittal, end debates, and turn into a verdict (Glasser, 2008, p. 1). There are no hard facts on these matters and whatever the situation may be, defendant’s rights must be protected. Having jurors to weigh things out in court hearings, their decisions must see to it that justice is served and not defeated.
On the other hand, there are also instances that a juror’s argument could be strong enough to support acquittal or would carry enough other jurors with him to avoid conviction (Glasser, 2008, p. 1). It depends upon the situation though wherein factors like accepting bribery or jurors truly served for a case. There are cases also when majority jurors will stop arguing and outvote a minority only after consistent debates has stopped to have persuasive effect or to serve any other purpose, that is when a minority continues to insist upon acquittal without having persuasive reasons in support of its position (Glasser, 2008, p.
1). Knowing these irregularities in the jury system, many defendants were convicted unjustly. There are also defendants who were set free of the crimes that they committed to the disadvantaged of the injured or aggrieved parties. In order to fully answer the issue on unanimity jury votes, there is a need to examine the case of Apocada v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana. In the case of Apocada v. Oregon, the claim of the petitioner is that the conviction by non-unanimous jury votes, allowed under Oregon state law is a violation of his rights under Sixth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Court decided that the fourteenth amendment does not necessitate unanimity. As a result, court juries in states can convict individuals even the votes is not unanimous. The same is true with the landmark case of Johnson v. Louisiana, the reasonable doubt standard maintained in the due process clause found in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution was not defeated by having a less unanimous jury votes (“Johnson v. Louisiana”).
Therefore, as mentioned earlier, even if the decisions of the jury are less unanimous, it cannot altogether be considered as a violation of the rights of the defendant. Finally, the defendants must not always rely with the old pronouncements of the issue since laws and judicial precedents may change over time. It may be the right of the defendants to claim due process, but it cannot defeat the fact that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the votes or decisions of the juries are legitimate and acceptable in the courts of justice.
A defendant cannot just allege irregularities in the jury system without thinking or looking into the positive side of the law and its implementation.
Ben Clemens Website. (2008). Convincing the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://ben. klemens. org/net_class/pdfs/unanimity_and_juries. pdf. Glasser, M. (1997). Letting The Supermajority Rule: Non- unanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials.
Retrieved October 13,,, 2008, from http://www. law. fsu. edu/ Journals/lawreview/frames/243/glasfram. html. J Rank Website. (2008). Johnson v. Louisiana. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://law. jrank. org/pages/12923/Johnson-v-Louisiana. html. Linder, D. (2008). University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. Retrieved October 113, 2008, from http://www. law. umkc. edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/jurysize. html.