PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — A bill proposal currently on the table in the Oregon Legislature could earn retrials for hundreds of Oregonians who had previously been convicted of a crime in a split jury decision.

The Senate Judiciary and Ballot Measure 110 committee held the first hearing for the proposed legislation Wednesday.

This new proposal comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled non-unanimous jury convictions to be unconstitutional under Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, which forced Oregon to update state laws in compliance with the ruling in 2021, making it the last state to allow split jury convictions.

Following the Ramos ruling, moving forward Oregon defendants would require a unanimous guilty verdict from juries in order to be convicted of most crimes. However, the Supreme Court decision and Oregon’s new law failed to address the issue of retroactivity, which meant hundreds of cases with split-jury convictions prior to the Ramos ruling would not be granted relief.

If passed, Senate Bill 15-11 would make the decision retroactive and allow those who could prove they were previously convicted by a non-unanimous jury decision a one-year window to re-try their case.

“Oregon’s non-unanimous jury rule was rooted in racism and xenophobia. Today I am here to encourage the Legislature to do its part in repairing the harm caused by this rule by passing Senate Bill 15-11,” Aliza Kaplan, law professor and Director of the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Lewis and Clark Law School stated during her testimony. “There are people currently incarcerated in Oregon who were convicted by a law that has been deemed unconstitutional.”

The bill taps into a historic, contentious debate regarding the state’s controversial non-unanimous jury rule, which has disproportionately impacted communities of color. The issue has garnered heavy support and opposition from parties throughout all sectors of the criminal justice system. 

While the Multnomah County District Attorney’s (MCDA) Office provided testimony in support of the bill during the initial hearing Wednesday, the Oregon District Attorneys Association (ODAA) simultaneously provided a statement in which they said they do not support its passage – citing a lack of funding outlined for victims and victim services as their largest concern.

“The racially problematic history of Ramos is well established, and the inevitable tendency of a non-unanimous verdict-based system to silence dissent and shorten jury deliberation is itself justification enough to require urgent legislative action,” MCDA Policy Director Aaron Knott stated during his testimony, Wednesday. “And while Oregon’s overlong reliance on a practice which had been abandoned by 48 other states even prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos poses a significant challenge, with the right investments, we can meet that challenge.”

Knott continued, “We must have the resources necessary to give victims the reliable, trauma-informed response that they will require to navigate this difficult time, and I urge you to keep this dynamic in mind as you are considering this important legislation.”

In a release Wednesday, the ODAA shared the following statement, “This retroactive application goes beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling which did not require retroactivity under the constitution. The consequence of this proposal would be that many cases would need to be retried causing undue trauma and uncertainty for crime victims and survivors who relied on the lawful finality of their case.”

Ahead of the hearing, ODAA sent a five-page letter to state Sen. Floyd Prozanski and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, outlining nine ‘technical concerns’ found within the bill. In the letter, the association also submitted recommended modifications and three alternative proposals. 

“Any legislative proposal that contemplates the undoing of possibly thousands of convictions for violent and sexual offenses must consider the immense and likely devastating impact to the victims of those crimes,” stated ODAA President and Marion County District Attorney Paige Clarkson. “As evidenced in hearing testimony today, asking mainly women and children to testify yet again against their abuser is just wrong when the rules were followed the first time and the US Supreme Court does not require it. We call upon legislators to put victims and the safety of our communities first.” 

During the preliminary hearing, lawmakers heard testimony from victims and victims’ families who expressed their disappointment in the proposed measure.

The mother of a child who experienced sexual abuse echoed sentiments put forth by the ODAA, as she told the panel retrying her daughter’s convicted abuser would force her child to relive the trauma and further devastate her mental health.

“Do you know what it’s like to have a talk with your child about going back to court? Explaining laws that they may not understand, and asking if they are willing and have the courage to do it all over again, and fight for what’s right? Well, I do.” Said the mother in her testimony. “All the hard work our family, friends, and Bikers Against Child Abuse put into making our children feel safe, have courage, bravery, and feeling loved – it is gone. Now we are back at square one.” 

Impact statements and written testimony were reportedly provided by former victims, who largely oppose the proposed legislation, as well as those who had been formerly convicted under split jury decisions and currently seek relief with its potential passage.

Kaplan, who founded the Ramos Project and has been a long-time advocate for retroactivity in Oregon’s non-unanimous jury cases, said passing this bill is about correcting historic wrongs and bringing justice to hundreds of residents — some who remain behind bars — who have been disproportionately impacted by the now unconstitutional rule.

“Before it was deemed unconstitutional, Oregon’s non-unanimous jury rule worked as intended, disproportionately impacting Black and Brown Oregonians,” Kaplan explained. “Though the full impact will never be known, research by the Ramos Project looking at a snapshot of 244 of Oregon’s post-conviction cases, reveals vast racial disparities in the conviction rate by non-unanimous juries.”

She cited research conducted by the Ramos Project which found although Black people only represent just 2.2% of the state population, they currently make up 18% of non-unanimous jury cases. That report also found Latinx and Hispanic people make up 16.4% of these cases even though they account for just 13.4% of Oregon’s population, and Native Americans represent 1.8% of the population but make up 2.9% of cases.

“SB 15-11 presents an opportunity to right a historic wrong in our state,” stated Kaplan. “For so many Oregonians irreversible harm has already been done. Years spent behind bars away from their families that they can never get back. And for those who have already been released, they continue to bear the stigma of a criminal conviction, now known to be unconstitutionally obtained, and it prevents them from getting jobs and housing, among other consequences. “

Kaplan continued. “The Legislature should pass SB 15-11 immediately, so we can put Oregon’s history of discriminating against jurors and defendants of color in the past where it belongs.”