- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS rules Louisiana non-unanimous juries unconstitutional
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:20 am to Ash Williams
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:20 am to Ash Williams
quote:
I read the opinion. Gorsuch specifically says it will only affect cases that are on direct appeal (about 45 cases in LA).
Says that prisoners whose appeals have been exhausted may try to have their convictions overturned through Habeus review but that it is unlikely and a question for a likely future case in front of them.
In Kavanaugh's concurrent opinion he overwhelmingly states that it shouldnt be retroactive
Going further would have been inappropriate based on the facts in Ramos, but in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, I will be surprised if full retroactive relief isn't in the cards at some point in the future.
1
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:21 am to Ash Williams
Gorsuch Comments are typical of the USSC. Make a ruling, add some dicta and the consequences be damned. Every PD in the state is filing a writ for everyone incarcerated. The PDs will complain about funding (louder than they currently are) bc now they will have the influx of appellant/PCR work and the trial work. They will refuse to perform other suites and mandated by law and point at the DAs/State. This will be a complete shite show on many levels.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:22 am to Joshjrn
quote:
told ADA after ADA that, if I were them, I would have stipulated to a unanimous verdict in every case since SCOTUS granted cert in Ramos. None of them listened...
And when you file an objection to the unanimous verdict requirement they’d laugh.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:23 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
Good. When a man's freedom and life are on the line, there is no room for "pretty close".
Although true, there are sadly usually 1-2 complete imbeciles in each jury who want to say "not guilty" regardless of how high the mountain of evidence is against someone who committed an awful crime. The split thing did help with those cases (also helped with eliminating problems related to a juror or two being bribed, etc). The prosecution just might have to try to be more hardcore during jury selection.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:24 am to Mr Wonderful
Our court system in LA is clogged under normal circumstances.
It's even worse now in this time of Corona.
And now we are going to add a bunch of retrials?
Yeesh.
It's even worse now in this time of Corona.
And now we are going to add a bunch of retrials?
Yeesh.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:25 am to biglego
quote:
And when you file an objection to the unanimous verdict requirement they’d laugh.
When I filed pretrial, they dismissed it as frivolous under precedent. I only had one trial that actually went under this limbo paradigm, but I can tell you the ADA looked sick when it came back non-uni
Re-urged a contemporaneous objection as a supplement to my pretrial motion, just to be safe
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:25 am to Joshjrn
quote:
but in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, I will be surprised if full retroactive relief isn't in the cards at some point in the future.
Because Miller/Montgomery werent procedural issues. According to Gorsuch this is:
quote:
But again the worries outstrip the facts. Under Teaguev. Lane, newly recognized rules of criminal procedure do notnormally apply in collateral review. True, Teague leftopen the possibility of an exception for “watershed rules”“implicat[ing] the fundamental fairness [and accuracy] of the trial.” But, as this language suggests, Teague’s test is a demanding one, so much so that this Court has yet to announce a new rule of criminal procedure capable of meetingit. And the test is demanding by design, expressly calibrated to address the reliance interests States have in the finality of their criminal judgments.7
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:25 am to Big EZ Tiger
quote:
Although true, there are sadly usually 1-2 complete imbeciles in each jury who want to say "not guilty" regardless of how high the mountain of evidence is against someone who committed an awful crime. The split thing did help with those cases (also helped with eliminating problems related to a juror or two being bribed, etc). The prosecution just might have to try to be more hardcore during jury selection.
I hate posts like this. 48 other states have figured this out. Including states that are a hell of a lot more liberal than LA.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:27 am to Big EZ Tiger
quote:
Although true, there are sadly usually 1-2 complete imbeciles in each jury who want to say "not guilty" regardless of how high the mountain of evidence is against someone who committed an awful crime. The split thing did help with those cases (also helped with eliminating problems related to a juror or two being bribed, etc). The prosecution just might have to try to be more hardcore during jury selection.
Based on the fact that the majority of cases that went to trial in Louisiana before we changed the law were decided with a unanimous verdict, your assertion lacks merit.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 11:29 am to Ash Williams
quote:
Because Miller/Montgomery werent procedural issues. According to Gorsuch this is:
I only got about five pages into the opinion before I had to put it down to begin making remote court appearances this morning, so it very well could have been decided in such a way that Montgomery-esque relief isn't possible
I very much look forward to reading the opinion later today.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 1:13 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I hate posts like this. 48 other states have figured this out. Including states that are a hell of a lot more liberal than LA
Although true, Louisiana typically finishes last or close to it when it comes to education. Those people make up our jury pools. That's all I'm saying.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 2:41 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Based on the fact that the majority of cases that went to trial in Louisiana before we changed the law were decided with a unanimous verdict, your assertion lacks merit.
I didn't say those 1-2 people always actually vote "not guilty", but they can certainly drag things out and sometimes do vote that way.
I'm sure some people innocent of crimes have been put behind bars due to that law just as more criminals have been put behind bars due to it, though I read that the majority of exonerations in Louisiana are still for unanimous verdicts.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 2:43 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Carnell Hayes gonna get off.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 3:38 pm to LeClerc
quote:
Carnell Hayes gonna get off.
Cardell's appeal is probably finalized so he wouldnt benefit
Looks like the appellate court affirmed the conviction on 3/27/19: LINK
If the Louisiana Supreme Court has already denied writs then his direct appeal is likely over
Posted on 4/20/20 at 3:49 pm to Mr Wonderful
Good.
This means officers and prosecutors will actually have to present a solid case and make good arrests in order to convict.
Now I’m sure the vagina officers will have knee jerk reactions over all this but it truly is a good thing.
This means officers and prosecutors will actually have to present a solid case and make good arrests in order to convict.
Now I’m sure the vagina officers will have knee jerk reactions over all this but it truly is a good thing.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 4:53 pm to Big EZ Tiger
quote:This.
Although true, there are sadly usually 1-2 complete imbeciles in each jury who want to say "not guilty" regardless of how high the mountain of evidence is against someone who committed an awful crime. The split thing did help with those cases (also helped with eliminating problems related to a juror or two being bribed, etc). The prosecution just might have to try to be more hardcore during jury selection.
Many guilty criminals will walk free because one juror will refuse to convict because of race.
i.e. Some racist arse white guy will not vote to convict another white man of a crime against a minority or visa versa.
Posted on 4/20/20 at 5:37 pm to Big EZ Tiger
quote:
Although true, there are sadly usually 1-2 complete imbeciles in each jury who want to say "not guilty" regardless of how high the mountain of evidence is against someone who committed an awful crime.
Yep. BTDT.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News