Is Petitioner convicted by a non-unanimous verdict, whose case is not yet final, entitled to the benefit of the holding in Ramos?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court held in Ramos v. Louisiana, that Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury scheme was unconstitutional. Pretermitting the question raised in Edwards v. Vannoy, concerning whether Ramos applies to final cases on federal habeas review, under Griffith v. Kentucky, new rules apply to all defendants whose cases are “pending on direct review or not yet final.” As Petitioner is still on direct appeal from the judgment entering his conviction and sentence, this case presents the following question: Is Petitioner convicted by a non-unanimous verdict, whose case is not yet final, entitled to the benefit of the holding in Ramos? i