Here we go. Let's do this.

Welcome to Strix Scrutiny, a Supreme Court podcast, so fierce it's fatal in fact.

I'm Jamie Santos, and I'm Leo Litman, and we are your host for today's episode. How you doing, Leah?

I'm doing pretty well. Obviously Melissa couldn't be here, since she's too busy being a Supreme Court shortlisted.

I'm not quite sure what Kate's excuse is, though.

Do you think Melissa would hire me as her lock clerk? I mean, I've already put it in application, so I kind of hope so.

She could have a pretty cool first term in Chambers.

All right, well, I think we should just jump right in, because we have a whole bunch of cool stuff.

We have a great episode today, jam packed with updates about the court's October sitting.

And so first, we're going to recap some arguments the court heard over the last three weeks.

But you might notice that we're not covering the title seven cases, because there's a whole separate episode for that,

because the cases are so important, they deserve their own episode.

And then we're also at the end going to talk about a couple of cert grants that were just granted.

And I'm guessing that by the time this episode airs, there might be a couple other cert grants, so we'll just have to tweet about those.

Exactly.

All right, Leah, so let's jump in. What is our first case?

So the first case is Ramos versus Louisiana.

And this case involves the question about whether the six amendment right to a unanimous jury, assuming such a right exists, which we'll get to a second.

Is incorporated against the states.

So basically by way of background, the six amendment says that criminal defendants have the right to a trial by jury.

And a couple, I think in the mid 20th century, the Supreme Court held that that six amendment requirement also requires unanimity in jury verdicts.

You can't have ten twos and get convicted of a crime.

...