re: Law proposed to require unanimous decision for felonies

quote:

---

The defendant got his due process and his just punishment.

---

This would have been that monster's "just punishment," particularly for killing the one year old:

>

quote:

---

Well it's backwards Louisiana with the highest incarceration rate in the country

---

Also have a lot of crimes being committed that contribute to the high incarceration rate. Cops aren't just strolling through the grocery store picking people up to toss in jail.

How common is it to go from 10-2 to not guilty?

And are those people unable to appeal?

If I had a client and 10 people voted to convict, there is a 90% chance he pleas before the 2nd trial. Most of the time because trial funds are exhausted and he's faced with getting a public defender.

ETA: As for appeal, there is no conviction so no ripe appeal. There is always the right to reduce or modify bond, but that depends on the charge.

quote:

---

If I had a client and 10 people voted to convict, there is a 90% chance he pleas before the 2nd trial. Most of the time because trial funds are exhausted and he's faced with getting a public defender.

---

I'd be willing to bet that most of the murder trials in this state are already at the public defender stage.

quote:

---

Nice story, but guess what? A 10-2 vote in favor of guilty in every other state in America does not mean the Defendant walks free. It isn't an acquittal. The Defendant would be remanded back to custody, probably without bond in your scenario, and retried in a couple of years for the exact same crime.

And what about the scenario where a jury convicts 10-2 and it turns out the guy was innocent? What should the courts and the jurors say or do to the Defendant in those scenarios?

---

There are good arguments than can be made for or against the standard (However, the unconstitutional argument was decided 46 years ago by the USSC)

Serious question for the sake of discussion. Have you ever served on a criminal jury or have significant experience with juries? In principle, I think we all hope that jurors would be unbiased, reasoned, and logical in their duties. However, in reality that isn't the case.

I think LSURussain's story is not completely apropos because while the women in his experience may have been wrong with the benefit of hindsight, it sounds like they did their duty. That is, hear the evidence and assign a weight of credibility to it. They did not find the confession credible, but it doesn't appear it was the result on an unreasonable bias.

On the other hand, I've seen more than a few cases where a black juror just flat out refuses to even listen to the thoughts of the other jurors in the room or even acknowledge the evidence. They simply refuse to convict a black defendant SOLELY base on skin color.

Now, to be fair, many times you can weed out potential jurors with that kind of bias (both black and white) in voir dire, but not always. I tend to agree that a 10-2 may be a bit harsh considering the aim of our legal system is absolute fairness to the accused. But going to a unanimous number would not be a good idea. You're right, a hung jury would not = an acquittal. But, you would also be wasting judicial resources in an already over-crowded docket strictly because one person has an immovable racial bias and it would create an even greater incentive to "hold out" for all the wrong reasons. I think 11-1 would be a good compromise.

quote:

---

He doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecutor though has to prove his guilt.

---

In theory it sounds good, right?

quote:

---

In theory it sounds good, right?

---

It's worked for over 200 years

I have experience with jury trials in criminal and civil court, but none serving as a juror. If the justification for keeping a 10/12 system is the institutional failure of African American jurors, or anyone for that matter, to keep their oaths when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there has to be a way to require extensive jury polling and potentially look at reforming double jeopardy.

For instance, if the 2 women in LSURussian's example were black and found to have ignored the evidence and voted not guilty based solely on race, then they have violated their oaths and should be punished. Also, was the Defendant then ever in jeopardy of conviction and should he be retried? Protecting the integrity of the jury system seems to be a way to prevent this. We also should make it harder for people to evade jury duty, otherwise you wind up with people who shouldn't be on a jury.