Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court

In Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/404.html), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, states are not required to
have unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. The Court seems to hint that both the government and
defendant benefit equally from non-unanimous verdicts. Is this really true? Who benefits most
from a hung jury? Given that the prosecutor has already screened out weak cases, isn’t a hung
jury a victory for the defendant? Isn’t this “reform” of jury trials one that disproportionately
benefits the government? Are state legislatures and governors going to approve reforms that will
make it more difficult for prosecutors to get convictions?

Instructions: Read the passage below and answer the following questions. Make sure your response is 1,200 words or more to support your answer.