Oregon & Louisiana Are Only states Allowing Nonunanimous Jury Verdict

choi

Jacob Gershman, Prosecutors Back Change for Conviction. Wall Street Journal, Jan 13, 2018.
http://www.cetusnews.com/news/Or ... in-.rJlVV0nLNz.html

three consecutive paragraphs:

"Federal Law requires jury verdicts in criminal cases to be unanimous, following a legal tradition that stretches back to the 14th-century England and was famously dramatized in the film '12 Angry men.' But the Supreme Court held in 1972 that the US constitution doesn't require jury unanimity in state courts."

"Oregon and Louisiana are the only states that allow for felony convictions on juror votes of 10-2 or 11-1. Oregon’s rule makes an exception for guilty verdicts in first-degree murder cases, which must be 12-0.

"The Oregon District Attorneys Association, consisting of the state’s 36 county prosecutors, decided to back [the correct word is: initiate] a repeal campaign [of 'an 84-year-old constitutional provision']last month.

Note:
(a) There is no need to read the rest.
(b) The Jewish (Ashkenazic) surname Gersh (without "man") is a variant of another surname Hirsch, from either German Hirsch or Yiddish hirsh, noth means deer.
(c)
(i) Oregon constitution Article I (Bill of Rights), section 11 reads in toto:

"Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; provided, however, that any accused person, in other than capital cases, and with the consent of the trial judge, may elect to waive trial by jury and consent to be tried by the judge of the court alone, such election to be in writing; provided, however, that in the circuit court ten members [out of 12] of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, which shall be found only by a unanimous verdict, and not otherwise; provided further, that the existing laws and constitutional provisions relative to criminal prosecutions shall be continued and remain in effect as to all prosecutions for crimes committed before the taking effect of this amendment.

(ii) Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in all: "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.

(d)
(i) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(a): "The jury must return its verdict to a judge in open court. The verdict must be unanimous.

"Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944" commented on this rule, "Note to Subdivision (a). This rule is a restatement of existing law and practice.
(ii) There is no federal statute (or law, as opposed to the above rule) to demand unanimous jury verdict in either criminal or civil trial, and yet unanimity is necessary in both (also found in rule: specifically Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48(b).   

(e)
(i) Johnson v Louisiana, 406 US 356 (1972) (It did not contravene federal constitution where a robbery suspect was tried before a 12-man jury and convicted by a nine-to-three verdict, as authorized by Louisiana law in cases where the crime is necessarily punishable at hard labor)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/case.html
(ii) Apodaca v Oregon, 406 US 404 (1972)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/404/case.html
(at pages 406-409: "In Williams v Florida, 399 US 78 (1970), we had occasion to consider a related issue: whether the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury requires that all juries consist of 12 men. After considering the history of the 12-man requirement and the functions it performs in contemporary society, we concluded that it was not of constitutional stature. We reach the same conclusion today with regard to the requirement of unanimity.  Like the requirement that juries consist of 12 men, the requirement of unanimity arose during the Middle Ages and had become an accepted feature of the common law jury by the 18th century. But, as we observed in Williams, 'the relevant constitutional history casts considerable doubt 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.' The most salient fact in the scanty history of the Sixth Amendment, which we reviewed in full in Williams, is that, as it was introduced by James Madison in the House of Representatives, the proposed [Sixth] Amendment [contained the wording unanimity’ that was rejected] "  (footnotes omitted) )
(A) Williams was not particularly illuminating; there is no need to read it.
(B) James Madison (1751 – 1836; US House of Representatives (from Virginia) 1789-1797; US secretary of state under Thomas Jefferson 1801-1809; president 1809 – 1817)