Jonatan O. RosarioMartinez v. United States

Every American prosecuted in state or federal civilian court has the constitutional protection of a unanimous verdict before being convicted of a serious crime. One class of defendants, however, does not receive that protection: those prosecuted before a court-martial. Under Article 52 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the federal government may convict a service member of murder, rape, or another serious offense—even one punishable by life imprisonment—based on the votes of only threefourths of a panel of lay members. This petition asks whether that practice survives this Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. Service members charged with ordinary criminal offenses that have long been tried before civilian juries may be convicted by a non-unanimous military panel, as courts-martial no longer require a military nexus. For many defendants charged with ordinary criminal offenses, including the four Petitioners, the only distinction between receiving the protections of a unanimous verdict and conviction by a nonunanimous vote is the government’s decision to prosecute before a court-martial rather than an Article III court. That choice alone determines whether an accused enjoys the constitutional protection of a unanimous verdict. The Question Presented is: Does the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause permit conviction in a court-martial by the nonunanimous vote of a panel of lay members?