The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral appeal as well, exploring the implications of such a decision and the criteria that should be used to make the decision in the case before the court, Edwards v. Vannoy (2021). Ultimately, I find that because the criteria currently used to determine retroactivity of new criminal precedents does not provide a clear answer to the question posed in Edwards, the Court should give more weight to the defendant's freedoms pursuant to the presumption of innocence while considering the potential for any disastrous outcomes.

The medium of film and television has become more prevalent in society than ever before. It pushes the boundaries of what technology can do and what realities mankind can explore. However, with their rapid expansion, the bounds by which society deems this medium as ethical or unethical, simplified as real or fiction, has become a lot hazier, daresay, inconsequential. While some facets of the medium strive and continue to focus on ethical practices (such as documentary work), others base their work loosely on those real experiences (e.g. “Based on a True Story”) or are wholly exaggerated or fabricated. With this in mind, it probes the question: Does research have a place in nonfiction storytelling? This thesis explores this premise, arguing that the more a story is researched and truthful to its subject matter, the better and more entertaining it will become.