Quote from: Dustin Fletcher - Oregon Gulag@Rev.Cambeul, Respects brother,
I hope this finds you in good health and spirits. It has just come to my attention that I won my Ramos Case. This means that it is a very good possibility that I will be paroling in the next few months. It may even be a case of when the paperwork gets filed over the next couple months it may result in immediate release. I will keep you updated as I learn.
Please send my regards to my brothers an my race!
Until then I hope you are well. Creatively, R! Dustin
The Many Layers of the Ramos Case
https://news.yahoo.com/many-layers-ramos-case-171558581.html
Excerpt: The Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana ruled that the Constitution requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict anyone accused of a serious crime. Most Americans probably thought this was already the law. It was generally accepted as the law when the Bill of Rights was written, and for a century thereafter. But two states, Louisiana and Oregon, have laws allowing convictions on a 10–2 vote, which survived a challenge in 1972 (Louisiana repealed its law in 2018 for new prosecutions).
Unanimous in 1791
A regular hot topic in the Supreme Court is originalism: whether the Constitution's language should be read to mean what the people who ratified it understood it to mean at the time. In this case, "at the time" mostly means 1791, when the states ratified the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury.
In Ramos, however, there was surprisingly limited debate over originalism. The Sixth Amendment says only "trial by an impartial jury," and in fact, the Senate in 1791 deleted James Madison's original reference to unanimous juries, which had passed the House. But the Court found that a verdict by a unanimous jury was a universal and longstanding assumption in the common law of the time, dating back to the 14th century and explicitly included in the constitutions of six states. No justice seriously attempted to argue the point. The Court concluded that the Senate had simply left the term "impartial jury" as a stand-in for the prevailing assumptions about what a jury trial meant, including unanimous verdicts.
Send Mail
