re: Brett Kavanaugh is certain a Louisiana law is rooted in racism.

Some have asked where the Constitution says jury verdicts must be unanimous. It does not say so expressly. (It also doesn't say you have to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.) The Sixth Amendment says:

quote:

---

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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Supreme Court cases going back to the 1800s have held that unanimity is an indispensable feature of the 6th Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury in federal court.

The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) only applied to the federal government at the beginning. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War that the courts started holding that its statement: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" incorporated some of the rights in the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states.

Back in the 1970s, the Supreme Court took up a case, Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) that challenged Oregon's law that allowed less than unanimous felony verdicts. 4 justices said that the 6th Amendment applies to the states but it does not include the right to a unanimous verdict in any court. 4 others said it applies to the states and requires unanimity in all courts. One justice--who essentially decided the case by breaking the tie--split the baby and said the 6th required unanimity in federal court, but that aspect of the 6th was not important enough to incorporate and apply to the states.

The trend since has been to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states. In a recent civil forfeiture case, Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the state argued that the 8th Amendment's prohibition on "excessive fines" should not apply to the states, so that they could forfeit your property with impunity. All 9 justices shot that down.

That makes it look pretty likely that they will say the 6th and its related interpretation apply to the states. Even Louisiana.

I'll sum up what 90% of the posters who will reply will say, without saying it.

"I loved him because Trump appointed him. But I don't really know the details behind this law, but he is someone not from Louisiana saying our laws are racist. I don't think I like him anymore"