DALLAS – In recognition of their work on behalf of personal injury and wrongful death clients, Dallas trial lawyers Michael Lyons and Chris Simmons have been selected among the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers for 2020.

Selection to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list is based on a rigorous process that includes internal research of top verdicts and settlements, as well as through interviews conducted with attorneys nationwide, in which they are asked to identify other attorneys they admire and who they would hire in a personal legal matter. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Simmons, co-founders of Dallas-based Lyons & Simmons, LLP, share a proven record of obtaining outstanding results for their clients in high-stakes, high-exposure cases tried before judges, juries and arbitrators involving life-altering personal injuries, wrongful death and “bet-the-company” business disputes across the country.

“We are so grateful for this tremendous recognition by our peers. I can tell you that it has been a real honor representing our clients, and what comes with that is a responsibility to do everything we can to get the best result,” said Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Lyons agreed, adding, “I’m extremely honored to be mentioned among this elite group of lawyers. In my heart I believe we’ve done some incredible things in the most difficult circumstances our clients will face and in the process we have inspired real change. That means a lot to me.”

Known for an aggressive approach that utilizes innovative technology and creativity, Mr. Lyons has earned professional accolades for personal injury and business litigation work including selection among the Top 100 Lawyers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area by Texas Super Lawyers, as well as Best Lawyers in America and D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas recognition. He is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forums, as well as a member of America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators.

Combining strategic and creative problem-solving abilities with highly skilled advocacy, Mr. Simmons has obtained record-setting results for his clients and has earned recognition as one of the top 100 lawyers under 40 in Texas by Texas Super Lawyers. He also has been included in D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas and has earned a Professional Excellence Award from Texas Lawyer magazine.

About Lyons & Simmons LLP
Dallas-based Lyons & Simmons, LLP is a trial boutique representing clients in wrongful death, personal injury, products liability and “bet-the-company” business litigation matters across the country. To learn more, visit http://www.Lyons-Simmons.com.

Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that Jose Villarreal has been named managing partner of the firm’s Austin office. He is the Austin office’s first managing partner since its official opening in February 2020.

A veteran patent litigator and advisor to technology and growth companies, Villarreal focuses his practice on patent litigation and patent trials, strategic intellectual property counseling and licensing, and merger and acquisition IP diligence across diverse technologies including semiconductors, telecommunications, and software. He has represented clients in federal district courts around the country and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Prior to his legal career, Villarreal worked in the telecommunications and networking industry. Jose has served on the Conference Planning Committee of the University of Texas School of Law Advanced Patent Law Institute since 2014 and is a founding member of the Yeakel IP Inn of Court.

Drawn by the dynamic growth of the Texas economy, Perkins Coie first entered the Texas market 10 years ago with the opening of its Dallas office. With the addition of the Austin office, the firm now has more than 30 attorneys in the Lone Star State across a range of practices, with particular strength in technology and privacy.

Texas Super Lawyers® Names Langley . Banack & Pfeuffer’s Justin B. Morley
Rising Star in Family Law for 2020.

Morley, who runs the firm’s Central Texas office in New Braunfels, provides counseling in family law matters, probate and guardianship law, probate litigation, estate planning, will preparation, temporary and permanent guardianship, medical powers of attorney and more. He is Board Certified in Family Law, a Certified Mediator, and was named a Fellow of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2019.

Morley graduated from St. Mary’s University School of Law with a J.D. in 2006. While a law student, he was a member of the Dean’s List, the International Legal Honor Society, Phi Delta Phi, and an Associate Editor of the St. Mary’s Law Journal. Morley received a B.A. from Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, in 2002.

Langley & Banack, Inc. has 18 specific practice areas that feature a depth of experience to provide the highest quality legal representation to clients. Their main office is in San Antonio, with additional offices located in Carrizo Springs, Castroville, Eagle Pass, Fredericksburg, Karnes City, Kerrville and New Braunfels. For more information about the firm, please visit www.langleybanack.com.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has announced that Curtis J. Busby, a partner at Bowman and Brooke LLP in Phoenix, has accepted an invitation to join the IADC, the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests.

“I am excited to become acquainted with such a talented group of attorneys that make up the IADC’s membership,” Mr. Busby said.

Mr. Busby focuses his practice on defending manufacturers in product liability claims throughout the Southwestern United States including Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. Having defended large corporations in very technical and complex claims involving catastrophic injury and wrongful death, Mr. Busby has extensive experience in litigation for nearly every major vehicle manufacturer. In addition, he has worked extensively representing manufacturers of household appliances and products in consumer products litigation. He also has experience in the energy industry.

Mr. Busby received his J.D. from the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School and his Bachelor of Arts (cum laude) from Brigham Young University. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

About the International Association of Defense Counsel
The IADC is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC has members who hail from six continents, 51 countries and territories, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members and their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community. For more information, visit www.iadclaw.org.

The Supreme Court ruled in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group that a trademark holder is not required to prove that infringement was willful to obtain the infringer’s profits. Romag had reached an agreement whereby Fossil would use Romag magnetic fasteners on Fossil handbags and other products. Romag subsequently discovered the Chinese factories that Fossil had hired to make the Fossil products were using counterfeit Romag fasteners and Fossil was doing little to prevent such occurrences. Romag filed suit in the District of Connecticut. A jury found Fossil liable for trademark infringement but determined while Fossil had acted “in callous disregard” of Romag’s rights, Fossil had not acted willfully. The District Court determined that, under Second Circuit precedent, willfulness was a prerequisite to the award of Fossil’s profits on the sales of the infringing goods, and therefore denied Romag’s request for Fossil’s profits. The Federal Circuit (who heard the appeal due to the existence of patent infringement issues) agreed that Second Circuit precedent required willfulness, while noting that other Circuit Court’s had disagreed.

The Supreme Court resolved the Circuit split and reversed the decision. The Court noted that, while the statutory language expressly requires a finding of willfulness as a precondition for defendant’s profits for trademark dilution, it does not for trademark infringement. The Court noted that the reluctance to read into statutes words that are not present is enhanced where the term in question appears elsewhere in the same statutory provision. The Court further noted that the Lanham Act makes frequent use of the defendant’s mental state, be it through terms like “willful,” “intentional” or “knowing,” that suggests where willfulness is required, the Lanham Act expressly provides for such. The absence of an express requirement strongly suggests willfulness is not a prerequisite.

Fossil sought to find a willfulness requirement implied in the Act’s requirement that defendant’s profits be awarded “subject to the principles of equity.” The Court refused, however, to read such requirement into that phrase, noting that “equity” is used widely in the law without being so interpreted. A different section of the Lanham Act, for example, lists laches, estoppel and acquiescence as examples of equitable principles, none of which relate to willful infringement. Accordingly, it would be difficult to imagine that the phrase was intended by Congress to incorporate a willfulness requirement in the sole instance of disgorgement of profits, particularly where Congress had seen fit to expressly include the defendant’s mental state in other portions of the statute in question. The Court further found that, while precedent indicated mental state was an important consideration in awarding profits (and should remain so), the case law did not speak clearly to the issue one way or the other.

The Court rejected Fossil’s policy-based argument for the inclusion of willfulness, noting that such policy decisions are for Congress — not the courts — to determine. Justices Alito, Breyer and Kagan concurred, writing separately and briefly to assert that willfulness, while not an absolute precondition, is a highly important consideration in the analysis. Justice Sotomayor concurred but sought to expressly exclude good-faith or innocent infringement from resulting in an award of profits as not being in accordance with traditional understanding of equity.

Thomas McNulty is Counsel at Boston intellectual property law firm, Lando & Anastasi, LLP.

Sidley Austin LLP is pleased to welcome Nathan Greene and Jay Baris as partners in its Investment Funds group in New York. Greene and Baris joined Sidley from Shearman & Sterling LLP, where they were both partners in the Investment Funds practice.

Greene represents U.S. and foreign investment companies, sponsors, advisers and directors in complex formation, operational and regulatory matters, especially with issues arising under the Investment Company Act of 1940. His practice includes SEC registration and other related matters, fund formation, associated distribution and marketing, and fund board and governance matters. Mr. Greene frequently counsels funds and financial institutions on regulatory considerations around emerging technology like big data, blockchain and artificial intelligence. He is widely known for his work in the registered alternatives market and for advising clients in M&A deals relating to registered advisers.

With more than 35 years of experience in the asset management area, Baris has advised many clients on a full spectrum of financial services regulation, transactions and governance matters. He is highly recognized for his work with registered funds on the regulatory aspects of fund and investment advisory operations. Similar to Mr. Greene, Baris has represented many clients on M&A, reorganizations, compliance, exceptive, and “status” issues under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Baris is the chair of an investment management task force on blockchain and cryptocurrencies with the American Bar Association and counsels fintech clients on cryptocurrency issues.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has entered into a strategic, two-year cross-promotional partnership with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), a global non-profit organization that advances dispute prevention and resolution practices and provides high-quality solutions.

Through the collaboration, IADC members will gain access to the CPR’s numerous resources and publications, as well as preferential rates for CPR membership and attendance at CPR events, including the organization’s annual meeting that convenes panels on a variety of topics of interest to the alternative dispute resolution community. Both U.S. and international IADC members can apply to serve on CPR’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals.

As part of the partnership, the IADC recommends CPR to its membership as an ADR provider whose arbitration, mediation and dispute resolution services and rules can be utilized worldwide by the IADC’s approximately 2,500 members and their clients. In addition, the IADC will promote membership with the CPR among IADC members and will facilitate attendance by CPR corporate members at the IADC’s Corporate Counsel and International Corporate Counsel Colleges, which provide content of particular interest to the in-house community.

The IADC and CPR also will explore joint programming opportunities through the new collaboration.

“We believe the IADC’s collaboration with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution will be a great partnership that delivers enhanced benefits and new professional development opportunities for our members,” said IADC President Amy Sherry Fischer.

CPR President and CEO Allen Waxman said, “With our goal of enhancing and improving the dispute prevention and resolution process, we look forward to a fruitful collaboration with IADC, and to providing our innovative dispute resolution services, thought leadership, tools and resources to an even broader audience.”

About the International Association of Defense Counsel
The IADC is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC has members who hail from six continents, 51 countries and territories, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members and their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community. For more information, visit www.iadclaw.org.

About CPR
Established in 1977, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) is an independent, nonprofit organization that helps prevent and resolve legal conflict more effectively and efficiently.

The CPR Institute drives a global prevention and dispute resolution culture through the thought leadership of its diverse membership of top companies, law firms, lawyers, academics, and leading mediators and arbitrators around the world. The Institute convenes best practice and industry-oriented committees and hosts global and regional meetings to share practices and develop innovative tools and resources. The Institute trains on dispute prevention and resolution, publishes a monthly journal on related topics, and advocates for supporting and expanding the capacity for dispute prevention and resolution globally.

CPR Dispute Resolution harnesses the thought leadership and output of the Institute while providing independent ADR services – mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, dispute resolution boards and others – through innovative and practical rules and procedures and through CPR’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals.

For more information visit https://www.cpradr.org.

“This is a frustrating time for small businesses. Many employers are trying to figure out how to cut costs and keep their businesses afloat during the on-going Covid-19 crisis. Employers are wondering how to manage their payroll when facing decreased revenue – some employers are in the undesirable position of having to reduce employees’ hours or, in some cases, end employment contracts. Given the unprecedented and unforeseeable long term effects of Covid-19 on business revenue, some employers may be wondering about ‘frustration’ of employment contracts,” writes Zoë Roberts in Minken’s Covid-19 Center.

“‘Frustration’ of a contract occurs when, through no fault of either party, the contract becomes impossible to fulfill. This might be, for example, because of a natural disaster – if a fire completely destroys a concert hall, the venue cannot fulfill a contract to have a band perform there. In other words, if an unforeseen event renders it impossible for the contract to be performed as initially agreed, the contract is ‘frustrated’ and both parties are released from their contractual obligations.”

“This concept is important in employment law because, generally, employees are not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 if the employee’s ‘contract of employment has become impossible to perform or has been frustrated by a fortuitous or unforeseeable event or circumstance’.”

Read the article.

“Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has drafted two separate Interim Guidance statements to help alleviate some of the industry’s and BLM’ hardships created by the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and dramatic collapse of oil prices. The final guidance should be issued by the end of the week,” writes Angela Franklin in Holland & Hart’s Legal Insights.

The article provides interim guidance for the following areas:

• Lease Suspension Requests During the COVID-19 National Emergency
• Royalty Rate Reduction Requests for Oil and Gas Leases during the COVID-19 national emergency

Read the article.

“The current market volatility arising from the restrictions imposed to reduce the risk of spread of COVID-19 has led many market participants to consider their position under existing contractual relationships, including, assessing their own obligations and whether any potential or actual event of default has occurred in respect of their counterparty. This memo illustrates practical issues to be taken into account by a counterparty to a financial contract in making these considerations using, as an example, a derivative transaction,” discussed in Cadwalader’s Resources.

“The impact of COVID-19 has led to unprecedented measures being put in place in many jurisdictions around the world which have, or may in the future have, the effect of closing markets in a variety of locations. These closures, and the location of the markets which are subject to closure, will need to be carefully considered to determine their impact on a party’s position under a financial contract.”

Read the article.

“Often included in long-term outsourcing/managed services agreements but sometimes overlooked as a contractual right, in this post we look at benchmarking provisions, including what benchmarking is, common rights and restrictions, and other considerations for customers and suppliers,” writes Vito Petretti and Oliver Bell in Morgan Lewis’ Blog.

“What Is Benchmarking?”

“Benchmarking provisions grant the customer a right to appoint a third-party organization (the benchmarker) to undertake a review of the price and/or the level of service that is being offered by the supplier under a contract as compared to the price and/or level of service offered by comparable suppliers for comparable services.”

“Benchmarking provisions aim to give the customer the right to ensure that the services it receives are a ‘good value’ (as defined by the parties in the agreement).”

“How Does It Work?…”

Read the article.

“Ann Arbor officials this week again delayed voting on a resolution to seek a federal Superfund cleanup of the Gelman dioxane plume,” reports Ryan Stanton in mlive’s Ann Arbor.

“City Council voted unanimously Tuesday morning, April 21, to postpone the matter until July 6, while city officials wait to see how legal negotiations with polluter Gelman Sciences play out in Washtenaw County Circuit Court.”

“Council also voted 10-1 to approve a fifth amendment to the city’s legal services agreement with Bodman PLC, which is representing the city in litigation against the polluter.”

“The contract is being increased by another $92,500, adding to $500,000 previously approved.”

“’The amount of time spent on recent negotiations, including the exchanges of drafts, court conferences, and providing advice as needed, has been more time consuming than anticipated,’ Assistant City Attorney Abigail Elias wrote in a memo.”

Read the article.

“Santee Cooper fired its chief legal officer this week as the state-run utility continues to weather the political backlash from a failed nuclear project and seeks to finalize a multi-million dollar legal settlement over those abandoned reactors,” reports Andrew Brown in The Post and Courier.

“Mike Baxley, a former judge and state lawmaker, was officially released from his position as Santee Cooper’s chief public affairs officer and general counsel on Friday.”

“The general counsel position was a role Baxley held since he joined the Mocks Corner-based utility in 2014, following a 14-year stint as a judge in South Carolina’s 4th Judicial Circuit.”

“Baxley declined to comment on exactly why he was let go. When contacted, he said: ‘The only comment appropriate for me to make at this time is my departure was not voluntary.’”

Read the article.

“A Louisville lawyer was arrested after allegedly threatening the life of Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear while criticizing the state’s coronavirus quarantine measures,” reports Vincent Barone in the New York Post.

“James Troutman, 53, faces a misdemeanor charge of third-degree terroristic threatening over comments he made against the governor on Facebook under the account of ‘Greg Troutman,’ which police traced back to the lawyer, according to the local outlet WDRB.”

“Police said Troutman jumped into another conversation on April 20 relating to the planned protests against Kentucky’s stay-at-home order.”

Read the article.

“A federal judge on Thursday approved the $5 billion Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine that Facebook agreed to pay last year over privacy violations stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” reports Chris Mills Rodrigo in The Hill.

“The settlement — reached in July and the largest in the FTC’s history — came after a lengthy investigation into Facebook.”

“The $5 billion agreement was criticized by lawmakers and other critics of Facebook who said the amount was too small given Facebook’s massive profits, and that it let the platform off too easily.”

“Several advocacy groups, including Public Citizen, Common Sense Media and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, had tried to stop the courts from approving the settlement.”

“U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, acknowledged the concerns in his opinion Thursday, saying they call into question laws governing technology companies.”

Read the article.

DALLAS – Trial attorney Alex Brauer, co-founder of the litigation boutique Bailey Brauer PLLC, has been selected for a fifth time among the top attorneys in Dallas by D Magazine. 

 Mr. Brauer was named to the 2020 Best Lawyers in Dallas list in recognition of his work in commercial litigation. Clients nationwide rely on Mr. Brauer to handle high-stakes business disputes ranging from breaches of noncompete agreements to allegations of transaction fraud and deceptive trade practices.  

“Alex is respected by clients for lending a sophisticated blend of experience, litigation expertise and creative legal strategy to all matters,” said firm co-founder Clayton Bailey. “Other lawyers in Dallas respect Alex’s reputation for achieving results, and this honor indicates that.”  

 Bailey Brauer attorneys offer multifaceted courtroom experience forged over many years practicing at some of the world’s leading law firms. Qualified, experienced attorneys handle each complex legal matter more cost-effectively for companies and individuals.  

The Best Lawyers in Dallas selection is just the latest honor for Mr. Brauer. He has also earned recognition in Chambers USA, the Texas edition of Super Lawyers magazine and Best Lawyers in America. He also has been recognized as a Texas Legal Trailblazer by Texas Lawyer magazine. 

 Mr. Brauer has served on several key Dallas Bar Association committees and is a devoted community advocate. He is a supporter of the Readers 2 Leaders literacy program and the Great Investors’ Best Ideas Foundation, benefiting The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the Vickery Meadow Youth Development Foundation. 

 Selection to the Best Lawyers in Dallas list is based on a comprehensive selection process that starts with peer nominations. A blue-ribbon panel evaluates the tabulated list and works with the editorial staff to select the finalists. The complete list is featured in the May 2020 edition of D Magazine and available at http://www.dmagazine.com. 

About Bailey Brauer PLLC  

Bailey Brauer PLLC is nationally recognized for its trial and appellate work and provides battle-tested, sophisticated courtroom experience in high-stakes litigation matters. The firm focuses on complex commercial litigation, appeals, and class actions. Learn more about the firm at: http://baileybrauer.com. 

Rasansky also among D Magazine’s list of Best Lawyers in Dallas for 2020

DALLAS – Trial lawyer Jeffrey Rasansky of Rasansky Law Firm in Dallas has been named one of the 500 leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers in the country for 2020 by the legal media guide Lawdragon.

In his nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer, Mr. Rasansky has successfully represented clients across the country in a wide range of catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death cases, including those impacted by vehicle crashes, medical malpractice, birth injuries and defective products. His aggressive approach to litigation has helped solidify his reputation among the leading personal injury attorneys in the country.

“Each and every day, the team at our firm helps clients through incredibly difficult times,” said Mr. Rasansky. “It is important for us to work as hard as we can to not only get our clients the justice they deserve, but also to make a positive impact on their lives.”

The Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list is determined through research of top verdicts and settlements combined with interviews conducted with other attorneys nationwide. In these surveys, lawyers are asked whose work they admire and would hire in a personal legal matter.

In addition to his Lawdragon selection, Mr. Rasansky was recently named among D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas. Selection to the prestigious listing is based upon peer nominations. Finalists are selected after review by a blue-ribbon panel and the magazine’s editorial staff.

About Rasansky Law Firm
The Rasansky Law Firm has built a national reputation for excellence by providing quality representation and the highest level of personal service with an award-winning team of experienced attorneys. The Rasansky Law Firm is committed to making a difference in their clients’ lives and improving the safety of our community at large.

Lowenstein Sandler has announced that Mary E. Storella has joined the firm’s Life Sciences group as the group’s Vice Chair and head of Life Sciences Transactions. Mary will focus on mergers and acquisitions, early and late stage collaborations, licenses, options, co-development and co-commercialization collaborations, clinical collaborations, and diagnostic collaborations in the pharmaceutical, biotech, and other industries.

Storella has over 15 years of experience supporting strategic life sciences transactions, most recently as Vice President and Senior Counsel, Corporate Transactions, at Celgene Corporation. There she led and supported a broad spectrum of deals, including the company’s $67 billion sale to Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene’s $13.4 billion divestiture of Otezla to Amgen, the company’s $9 billion acquisition of Juno Therapeutics, and its $300 million acquisition of Delinia, Inc.

Prior to Celgene, Storella worked as both an attorney and Executive Director of Business Development at Merck & Co. Inc., where she headed a transaction team on all aspects of licensing, partnerships, and acquisition opportunities. Representative transactions at Merck include Merck’s $14.2 billion divestiture of its consumer care business to Bayer, its $10 billion acquisition of Cubist Pharmaceuticals, and the licensing of Phase III oncology product and collaboration with Endocyte.

Storella earned her J.D from Pace University Law School and her B.A. from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Leafline Industries, LLC, and its portfolio of subsidiaries in the legal medical cannabis business and CBD wellness business, have named Mitchel Chargo as General Counsel and Executive Vice President. In this role, he will lead Leafline’s legal, compliance, and governance matters,” reported via PR Newswire’s News Releases.

“Mr. Chargo brings more than 25 years of experience as a private practice attorney to this role. He worked for two of the largest law firms in the State of Minnesota and was an owner of his own law firm which had a footprint of offices in six states. Over the years, Mr. Chargo’s practice has involved a broad mix of business, banking and commercial real estate transactions, legal compliance, and commercial litigation. Mr. Chargo graduated with Magna Cum Laude honors from both the University of Minnesota and William Mitchell College of Law (now the Mitchell Hamline School of Law). ”

Read the article.

“The Supreme Court said Monday that unanimous jury verdicts are required in state criminal trials for serious offenses, handing a victory to criminal defendants including petitioner Evangelisto Ramos, who was convicted of murder in Louisiana on a 10-2 vote,” reports Ariane de Vogue in CNN Politics.

“Ramos argued that Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury provision violated his federal constitutional right to trial by jury and that the law had racist roots meant to diminish the votes of minority jurors.”

“Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the opinion and was joined in key parts by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh.”

Gorsuch wrote, “We took this case to decide whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial — as incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment — requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. One of these requirements was unanimity a jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict. The answer is unmistakable.”

“Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment on narrower grounds, whereas Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan joined Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent.”

Read the article.