Supreme Court Says Unanimous Verdict Rule Is Not Retroactive

The High Court ruled that split juries are not automatically entitled to new trials, requiring unanimous verdicts in state criminal trials. Justice Kavanaugh noted this aligns with longstanding retroactivity proceedings. However, Justice Kagan highlighted concerns that those convicted under unfair rules may lack federal recourse.

What did the High Court decide regarding split juries?

• They are automatically entitled to new trials.

• They are not automatically entitled to new trials.

• They must be retried in federal courts.

• They require a majority verdict.

What is now required in state criminal trials according to Justice Brett Kavanaugh?

• A majority verdict

• A retrial in federal court

• A split jury decision

• A unanimous verdict

What aspect of the High Court's decision aligns with longstanding proceedings?

• The need for federal court intervention

• The decision on retroactivity

• The automatic entitlement to new trials

• The requirement for split juries

Which Justice expressed concerns about the fairness of the ruling?

• Justice Brett Kavanaugh

• Justice Elena Kagan

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor

What does the ruling mean for those convicted under unfair rules, according to Justice Elena Kagan?

• They will have their cases retried.

• They will receive compensation.

• They will be automatically pardoned.

• They will be left without recourse in federal courts.