[1] A fractured court overturned Apodaca in Ramos v. Louisiana, deciding that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict applied to the states, at least for felony convictions.
[6][7][8] After Edwards's conviction became final in March 2011 he filed for federal habeas relief based on his constitutional right to a unanimous jury.
The Court granted certiorari to Edwards' revised petition in May 2020 on the limited question of whether Ramos v. Louisiana applied retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.
The Louisiana Solicitor General argued that retroactive application of Ramos would require re-trial for thousands of cases "that involve terrible crimes" and would be unfair to the victims.
Edwards attorney argued that the case fell within the watershed exception to the Teague doctrine that otherwise foreclosed retroactive applicability of new procedural rules on federal collateral review.
Most Supreme Court decisions on new rules of criminal procedure do not have retroactive applicability for finalized convictions on federal collateral review.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority:[13] It is time—probably long past time—to make explicit what has become increasingly apparent to bench and bar over the last 32 years: New procedural rules do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.
As such, Kavanaugh considered that that portion of the Teague ruling was overturned:[14] If landmark and historic criminal procedure decisions—including Mapp, Miranda, Duncan, Crawford, Batson, and now Ramos—do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review, how can any additional new rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively on federal collateral review?
We cannot responsibly continue to suggest otherwise to litigants and courts.Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Kagan wrote that "those convicted under rules found not to produce fair and reliable verdicts will be left without recourse in federal courts.