Talk:Apodaca v. Oregon

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scai8. Peer reviewers: Kcarey19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

multiple opinions

This article was written as though Powell's concurring opinion, that there is a Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous verdict, but that right is not incorporated against the states, was a majority opinion of the court. The actual case is more fractured than that. As I pointed out in Talk:Incorporation (Bill of Rights), the four-justice plurality held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Only a single justice, Justice Powell, concurring in the judgment, held the position that there is a constitutional right to a unanimous jury decision, but that that right is not incorporated against the states. Four dissenting justices held the view that there was such a constitutional right, and that it should be incorporated against the states. I've edited it to correct that. I'm sure my edit here can be improved, but it does at least get the correct information into the article. TJRC (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apodaca v. Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/404.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212130516/http://supreme.justia.com:80/us/406/404/case.html to http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/404/case.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating for class

Hi all, I'm a law student with an assignment to update this page. I plan to flesh out the facts and procedural posture of the case, as well as some of the other opinions. I'll also add a little bit about the implications of this case, including how Oregon is now the only state that allows non-unanimous jury verdicts for felonies (other than first-degree murder). I plan to make these changes within the next week, but feel free to let me know if anything looks amiss! Scai8 (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

needs update. case is about to be overuled.

a month or so ago the supreme court held argument in a louisiana case which is expected to overule apadoca, and incorporate the unanimous jury requirement into the 14th amendment. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-justices-weigh-constitutionality-of-non-unanimous-jury-rule/

~~gtbear@gmail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.158.23 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]