Edwards v. Vannoy

True or False

In the United States, for serious criminal charges, juries have always been required to vote unanimously to convict someone.

In which Court was the case discussed in the podcast decided?

What is the significance of Ramos v. Louisiana?

The Supreme Court held that the death penalty for juveniles is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty for juveniles is constitutional.
The US Supreme Court said for serious criminal charges, all states must require a unanimous (e.g., 12-0) jury decision to convict the defendant. Not 11-1 or 10-2.
The US Supreme Court said for serious criminal charges, states do not require a unanimous (e.g., 12-0) jury decision to convict the defendant. 11-1 or 10-2 verdicts are permissible.

Which of the following statements are true following the Edwards v. Vannoy decision? (Hint: Two are true).

If you are in prison because a jury convicted you of a serious crime by a 10-2 verdict, and you still have a pending appeal, then you may be released from prison because Edwards v. Vannoy applies retroactively.
If you are in prison because a jury convicted you of a serious crime by a 10-2 verdict, but you don’t have any remaining appeals, then you cannot get out of prison because Edwards v. Vannoy does not apply retroactively to your case.
If you are in prison because a jury convicted you of a serious crime by a 10-2 verdict, then you may not appeal because Edwards v. Vannoy only applies to convictions by an 11-1 verdict.
Edwards v. Vannoy does not apply retroactively.

According to Dan, what is the distinction the court in Edwards v. Vannoy makes between procedural and substantive change?

If a Supreme Court decision makes a substantive change in the law, then it does not apply retroactively. But if the decision makes a procedural change in the law, then it does apply retroactively.
Neither substantive nor procedural changes in the law established by the Supreme Court may apply retroactively.
All decisions of the Supreme Court apply retroactively.
If a Supreme Court decision makes a substantive change in the law, then it applies retroactively. But if the decision makes a procedural change in the law, then it doesn’t apply retroactively.

What is a “watershed change”?

What did the dissent argue in Edwards v. Vannoy?

Regardless of whether a change in the law is procedural or substantive then it should never apply retroactively.
Even if a change in the law is procedural then it should always apply retroactively.
The law should never change.
Even if a change in the law is procedural, if it’s a watershed change, then it should still apply retroactively.