re: Brett Kavanaugh is certain a Louisiana law is rooted in racism.

quote:

---

How did this case get there? Who challenged the change?

---

Or will this also end up effecting all those in jail who didn’t have unanimous jury convictions.

Problem with not being unanimous is less being biased against defendant these days (though it seems like it would have also made it easier in past to convict whites for crimes against blacks if jury ends up with 1 or 2 closet racists) and more overcoming ignorance and/or laziness of jurists, courts, judges, & lawyers. Sometimes that can be racial where someone will still not vote to convict their own race of obvious crimes, but other times it’s just being ignorant of subject matter. Most people on jury don’t want to be there and the ones that do are probably worse.

I think the 6 to 0 being better than 12 to 1 or 2 is a weak argument, and I don’t agree that anyone has a constitutional right to a unanimous jury decision. Kavanaugh was the best the left could hope for out potential pool reported & not who I had hoped would be chosen (still think former justice played a part in retirement agreement), and the left falsely destroyed him because of Trump & abortion. If he had just been a member of La Raza and made sexist & racist comments maybe they would have supported him more.

Non-unanimous criminal convictions are unconstitutional... no matter the reason.

quote:

---

If he wins, a lot of convictions may have to be overturned.

---

Which is bullshite - if the standard had been 12-0, it's possible many of them would have deliberated until conviction.

Obviously, some of them would have hung and unlikely any of them would have acquitted - but now, changing the rules post facto will benefit lots of guilty baws.

And, for the record, I would be, generally, in favor of unanimous verdicts in criminal cases.

quote:

---

I don't think that racism is the reason we held on to easier convictions, even though racism was the historical reason for the rule.

---

Why? Would this not have the same outcome if a white man was convicted on a non-unanimous decision? Or maybe it's sexist?

quote:

---

I don't think it's as much institutional racism anymore as much as it is laziness.

---

That's a good point especially considering the amount of work that would go in to changing it that you further explained. I didn't think of that.

quote:

---

Non-unanimous criminal convictions are unconstitutional... no matter the reason.

---

Unless you are talking about the recent changes to State law, Where is this stated in US constitution?

Cuz Orange Man Bad!

I don’t like racism as a justification of repealing or enforcing any law. However, I do agree that a conviction should be brought by a unanimous decision from a jury. Either the state has the evidence to convict the defendant or not.

So Kavabaw turned out to be a Kavanaw?

quote:

---

If 1 out of 6 jurors believe the state hasn't proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, I could not in good conscience approve of sending the Defendant to prison

---

I'm sympathetic to this reasoning but the pessimist in me says not everyone in a jury is acting in the interest of Justice.

In addition, Teddy raised a good point where the Jury agrees a defendent is guilty, but dispute the crimes severity.

I'm not convinced that allowing a 10/12 conviction is the answer, but there has to be a better answer than a retrial every 10-2 or 11-1 decision. Excessive retrials put unnecessary fiscal burden on the state(and thus the taxpayer), the defendent(or the state again, if a PD is used) and also clogs the judicial system, making it more and more difficult for a "right to speedy trial" to be obliged.