The Supreme Court’s 2020 landmark decision inRamos v. Louisianafinally con-firmed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of unanimous verdicts in criminal jury trials against States, ending the last vestiges of Jim Crow-era juror racial disenfranchisement remaining in two States’ criminal procedures. It was not a shocking decision, and it was well past due: 400 years of common law practice reflected in the laws of forty-eight States and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure already required unanimous guilty verdicts, along with thirteen prior Court decisions validating this fundamental attribute of jury fact-finding.

中文翻译：

---

为什么非一致（军事法庭）的有罪判决在拉莫斯之后仍然有效？

最高法院 2020 年在拉莫斯诉路易斯安那州案中做出的具有里程碑意义的裁决最终证实，第十四修正案纳入了第六修正案保证在针对各州的刑事陪审团审判中作出一致裁决，结束了吉姆·克劳时代陪审员种族剥夺公民权在两个州的刑事案件中留下的最后痕迹程序。这不是一个令人震惊的决定，而且已经过时了：48 个州的法律和联邦刑事诉讼规则反映了 400 年的普通法实践已经要求一致的有罪判决，以及之前的 13 项法院判决证实了这一点陪审团事实调查的基本属性。