Johnson v. Louisiana

Although at odds with arguments made by the dissenting justices, the majority opinion ruled that due process of law with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment was served regardless of whether a conviction was obtained by a unanimous jury decision. They held that a "reasonable doubt standard" was not violated by verdicts rendered by a split jury. Justices upheld a Louisiana state law which set in motion a trial system that varied according to severity of crime committed and severity of punishment. In finding Louisiana's statute constitutional, the Court specifically held that a split jury did not indicate that deliberations were indicative of reasonable doubt. Instead they reasoned that a majority of jurors were resolute in their conviction that a crime had been committed by the accused. While instructions to a jury warn that a vote to convict must be accompanied by belief that a defendant's guilt is evidenced by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court ruled that only a majority of jurors need assure that a defendant's right to due process and equal protection is maintained. The decision opened a window of opportunity for other states to engage in trial reform that, like Louisiana's statute, would serve to, in the Court's opinion, "facilitate, expedite, and reduce expense in the administration of justice."