Talk:Apodaca v. Oregon

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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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 Talk:Incorporation (Bill of Rights), the four-justice plurality held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Only a single justice, Justice Powell, concurring in the judgment, held the position that there is a constitutional right to a unanimous jury decision, but that that right is not incorporated against the states. Four dissenting justices held the view that there was such a constitutional right, and that it should be incorporated against the states. I've edited it to correct that. I'm sure my edit here can be improved, but it does at least get the correct information into the article. TJRC (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 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 ).

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)