To eliminate the requirement for unanimous verdicts in Federal court. (Introduced in the Senate) S 1426 IS 104th CONGRESS 1 st Session S. 1426 To eliminate the requirement for unanimous verdicts in Federal court. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES November 27, 1995 Mr.THURMOND (for himself and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. A BILL To eliminate the requirement for unanimous verdicts in Federal court. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Untied States of America in Congress assembled SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Rule 3 l(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by striking \\\'unanimous\\\' and inserting by five-sixths of the jury\\\'. SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended-- (1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: \\\'The verdict shall be by five-sixths of the jury.\\\'; and (2) in the last sentence, by striking \\\'l) the verdict Shall be unanimous and (2)\\\' . STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - November 27, 1995) FEDERAL COURT LEGISLATION Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho [Note: Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming is also now a co-sponsor] to amend the Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure to allow convictions on a 10 to 2 jury vote. It is my belief that this change to the Federal rules will bring about increased efficiency in our Nation\\\'s court system while maintaining the integrity of the pursuit of justice. This legislation is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling concerning unanimity in jury verdicts, specifically in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that the sixth amendment guarantee of a jury trial does not require that the jury\\\'s vote be unanimous. The Supreme Court affirmed an Oregon Court of Appeals decision which upheld a guilty verdict under an Oregon law that allowed a 10 to 2 conviction in criminal prosecutions. Mr. President, clearly there is not a constitutional mandate for the current requirement under the Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure of a jury verdict by a unanimous vote. The origins of the unanimity rule are not easy to traces although it may date back to the latter half of the 14th century. One theory proffered is that defendants had few other rules to ensure a fair trial and a unanimous jury vote for conviction compensated for other inadequacies at trial. Of course, today the entire trial process is heavily tilted toward the accused with many, many safeguards in place to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Although majority verdicts were permitted during 17th century America in South Carolina, North Carolina, Connecticut and Pennsylvania; unanimous verdicts became an accepted part of common-law juries by the 18th century. Mr. President, I found it interesting that the proposed language for the sixth amendment, as introduced by James Madison in the House of Representatives, provided for trial by jury as well as requisite of unanimity for conviction. White this particular proposal was passed by the House with little change, it met a significant challenge in the Senate and was returned to the House in a different form. Later, a conference committee was appointed and reported the language adopted by the Congress and the States which reflects the current sixth amendment The earlier House proposal requiring a unanimous jury verdict for conviction was considered and not made a part of the sixth amendment. For purposes of discussion of this legislation, I will quote the pertinent part of the sixth amendment: \\\'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.\\\' The sixth amendment includes some features of common-law juries. However, the Supreme Court has admonished reliance on the easy assumption that if a given feature existed in a jury at common law in 1789~ then it was necessarily preserved in the Constitution. So here we see the Supreme Court has noted specifically that all features of the common-law jury are not mandated by the Constitution. Mr. president, there may be a number of inferences to be drawn from the deletion of the unanimity for conviction requirement in the proposed sixth amendment. One point we cannot escape is the fact that a unanimity requirement was considered by our Founding Fathers and determined that it should not be constitutionally mandated. In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. at 156, the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the right to a trial by jury is to prevent oppression by the Government by providing a safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the biased or eccentric judge \\\' Carrying this view farther in the subsequent case of Williams v. Florida 399 S. 78 (1970), the Supreme Court stated \\\'\\\'The essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the commonsense judgment of a group of laymen\\\'. Williams, supra, at 100. Juries are representative of the community and their solemn duty is to hear the evidence, deliberate, and decide the case after careful review of the facts and the law. Of course, this should be done free of intimidation from outside and within the jury. The Supreme Court has noted that a jury can responsibly perform its Obligation whether they are required to act unanimously or allowed to decide the case on a vote of 10 to 2. There are cases where a requirement of unanimity produced a hung jury where had there been a nonunanimous allowance the jury would have voted to conflict or acquit. Yet, in both instances, the defendant is accorded his constitutional right of a judgment by his peers. It is my firm belief that this legislation will not undermine the pillars of justice or result in the conviction of innocent persons. The American people, I believe, will strongly support change in the Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure to allow a jury conviction by a vote of 10 to 2. This change for jury verdicts in the Federal courts will also reduce the likelihood of a single juror corrupting an otherwise thoughtful and reasonable deliberation of the evidence. Mr. President, I hope the Congress will give careful and favorable consideration to this proposal and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1426 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Rule 3 I (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by striking \\\'unanimous\\\' and inserting \\\'by five-sixths of the jury\\\'. SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended- (l) by inserting after the first sentence the following: \\\'The verdict shall be by five-sixths of the jury.\\\'; and (2) in the last sentence, by striking \\\'(1) the verdict shall be unanimous and (2)\\\' [....] [Library of Congress database is apparently incomplete. The remainder is not available as part of the Congressional Record]