Johnson v. Louisiana — Marshall, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Marshall, dissenting, argues that the Court’s decision erodes two core safeguards—jury unanimity and proof beyond a reasonable doubt—by allowing non‑unanimous verdicts and treating minority juror doubts as irrelevant, thereby weakening the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial. He contends that history and the Constitution require unanimity and that doubts of dissenting jurors demonstrate a failure to meet the reasonable‑doubt standard. The dissent also warns that the ruling permits states to experiment with fundamental rights, contrary to established constitutional protections. Justice Marshall, dissenting, would have held that unanimity is essential and that any dissenting juror’s doubt bars conviction.