Amendment No. 2 - Unanimous Jury

quote:

---

Will this result in more mistrials?

Does it make it tougher for the prosecution to get a conviction?

---

Obviously, if verdict is 12/12 instead o 10/12 the answer to the two questions above are yes.

I have wanted to serve on a Jury as far back as I can remember but have never even made it to voir dire.

My wife, on the other hand, has sat on several juries. Her stance on this is that she has sat on juries for cases before where one person held out despite overwhelming evidence just because they could.

Keeping the law as-is lessens the impact of such actions.

Remember, this doesn't just impact guilty verdicts, it impacts not-guilty verdicts as well (meaning you don't have to have a unanimous not-guilty verdict).

I've sat on juries before. All I can say is that the system sucks. Bench trials suck. There is no good option.

quote:

---

Why is this amendment on the ballot?

---

Because 2/3 of the Louisiana legislature voted to put the measure on the ballot.

quote:

---

Is there a particular issue that needs to be resolved?

---

Yes, in a non-unanimous verdict paradigm, there is no duty/reason to even discuss the case with one's fellow jurors if they go back and have at least 10-2 in agreement. Forcing that discussion is superior.

quote:

---

Will this result in more mistrials?

---

According to the study circulated among the state District Attorney's Association, the rate of mistrials (currently very, very low) would increase by 6%. In real terms, this is an extremely, extremely small increase in the number of cases that would be declared mistrials and would need to be retried.

quote:

---

Does it make it tougher for the prosecution to get a conviction?

---

Technically, it makes it a little bit more difficult for any jury to reach a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty. However, in my experience, jurors holding minority positions can usually be swayed if necessary. It's simply currently not necessary.

quote:

---

Because the Legislative Black Caucus, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, most of the state's newspapers and the Louisiana Bar Association want to make it more difficult to convict defendants in non-capital punishment felony cases.

---

You keep saying that. Do you have a response for why the Louisiana Republican Party has come out in favor of the amendment, as well?

quote:

---

There is no good option.

---

Professional juries

quote:

---

I'm not inherently opposed, but the devil would be in the details. It would certainly save me a tremendous amount of time from having to explain "reasonable doubt" to laymen

---

Or having people who barely made it through high school try to decipher complex opinions on dna testing, accident reconstruction, medical procedures, etc.

Why do people keep ignoring my question about why they think the Louisiana Republican Party has endorsed the amendment?

This bullshite = the way 48 other states do it and the way entire federal system works

As I've mentioned on other threads on the subject, I find it fascinating that the officials who defend the current paradigm in public swear up and down that it has nothing to do with racism, yet the majority of people I've seen defend it on this board do so because they believe black people won't convict other black people, so we need to have a system that means they won't frick things all up

I'm for it. I'd rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail. This limits government power and I'm all for it.