Talk:Apodaca v. Oregon
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scai8. Peer reviewers: Kcarey19.
Above undated message substituted from
multiple opinions
This article was written as though Powell's concurring opinion, that there is a Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous verdict, but that right is not incorporated against the states, was a majority opinion of the court. The actual case is more fractured than that. As I pointed out in
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apodaca v. Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/404.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212130516/http://supreme.justia.com:80/us/406/404/case.html to http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/404/case.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
{{source check
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Updating for class
Hi all, I'm a law student with an assignment to update this page. I plan to flesh out the facts and procedural posture of the case, as well as some of the other opinions. I'll also add a little bit about the implications of this case, including how Oregon is now the only state that allows non-unanimous jury verdicts for felonies (other than first-degree murder). I plan to make these changes within the next week, but feel free to let me know if anything looks amiss! Scai8 (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
needs update. case is about to be overuled.
a month or so ago the supreme court held argument in a louisiana case which is expected to overule apadoca, and incorporate the unanimous jury requirement into the 14th amendment. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-justices-weigh-constitutionality-of-non-unanimous-jury-rule/
~~gtbear@gmail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.158.23 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)