The Supremes previously ruled that it was unconstitutional to convict without a unanimous verdict. So prisoners so convicted sued, and the court ruled the previous ruling was not retroactive.
How? If it violates a person's right to be convicted by less than unanimous jury, how can the people in jail via that route not deserve relief.
The one answer is that the court is suggesting this is a new right, but the originalists all voted to not make this retroactive. So are they granting new rights?
What sort of logic is involved here?
How? If it violates a person's right to be convicted by less than unanimous jury, how can the people in jail via that route not deserve relief.
The one answer is that the court is suggesting this is a new right, but the originalists all voted to not make this retroactive. So are they granting new rights?
What sort of logic is involved here?