re: Amendment No. 2 - Unanimous Jury

Stand by it all you’d like; you’re wrong.

I routinely advocate for positions that are contrary to my own professional interest. Ending the War on Drugs being an obvious example. And again, it’s not like we get a bonus for hanging a jury. We are aiming for a not guilty verdict, which this amendment makes more difficult to achieve. The idea that defense attorneys have some grand interest in increasing the number of mistrials simply isn’t reflective of reality, and even if we did, a change projected to increase them by only 6% would hardly be worth the effort.

Anyway, considering the breadth of the coalition endorsing this amendment, attempting to boil it down to a petty squabble between defense attorneys and prosecutors who, put together, might make up 0.01% of the population, is absurd.

I didn’t say it was the only factor, but the driving factor for both sides. Yes, I admit that this is an oversimplification of the issue, but I’ve given reasons in the other thread that should be considered which are largely ignored by both sides. You’ve said yourself that you’d rather pick from a 6 rather than 12 because of unanimity requirement. That’s because of what I said, it’s easier to get 1 wildcard than three. You act like admitting your biases absolves you from partisan criticism, but it doesn’t. Especially whenever you aren’t being fully honest with everyone. Im simply giving everyone here a lens with which to view all of your posts on this subject. People need to know who is pushing this and why. People need to know that coastal states, specifically organizations created and operated in California, are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign for unanimous juries. People need to know that billboards went up calling the main opponent to unanimous juries a racist (again, funded by California orgs.) It’s mob rule and disheartening that we can work through this problem fairly.

I agree that the rule needs to be more scrutinized when you consider we are the only 10-2 state. It makes me hesitant about keeping the law as well. But I’m able to understand that you can point to the other states all you want but the argument that they are all doing it, so it must be right, is fallacious and isn’t evidence. Other states have incarceration issues, other states have higher (some much higher) wrongful convictions rates, other states have problems with the criminal system. My point has always been that there is zero evidence that this is a cure to any of those problems. In fact, the little information we have suggests that it might exacerbate the problems. The grand question has always been “are we SURE we are wrong?” And I haven’t seen any evidence that is persuasive. This is change for the sake of change.

There is an absolute interest in the defense to get a mistrial. Defense attorneys work for one all the time now! Whether it is to charge extra fees for a new trial or to add age to the case (all criminal lawyers know that the longer a case sits, it only deteriorates. Memories get fuzzy, witnesses are harder to find, things get lost, etc.) Now I’ve argued that mistrials could potentially hurt the indigent defendants, but don’t act like if a defense attorney gets a mistrial he isn’t walking out of the court high-fiving his side.

And no, i don’t think it is absurd to pin most of this on the 1 percent of the 1 percent. That is the two main parties that have pushed and argued this amendment. Those are the two parties that the amendment practically affects the most. In fact, that’s the truth for how 99% of our laws are made. I simply want to pull back the curtain and put everything on the table to let people educate themselves and decide how they choose.

Just so you know, this has no affect on my job and I haven’t even fully decided on how I’m going to vote. I see merit to both sides, but I have yet to see an intellectually honest discussion. I’m just trying to give people the full picture to make the most educated decision on this matter and you’re making me go hard one in on direction because of your responses. /rant

Anything the criminal defense lawyers are in favor of-Vote against.

quote:

---

not wanting voices on juries ignored.

---

Absolutely a valid concern and one I’ve debated with myself. My other concern is that 12-0 will amplify certain voices over others. Let’s say hypothetically that a jury goes back on a second degree murder charge and 10/11 believe guilty as charged, and 1/2 say manslaughter. What will happen much more often than not (because I think it is human nature and it is my understanding this already happens to a degree) is that they compromise. And that compromise is the 10/11 will go down to manslaughter rather than the 1/2 go up to second degree. Now we have the opinions of the few dictating the opinions of the many. I think that should be a concern as well. Now, is that concern equal to silencing some as you are worried about? Is that even necessarily a bad thing? maybe not, but at the very least it is debatable and probably comes down to personal ideologies. I do believe that they are close enough to a wash that we need to move on to other factors now, such as wrongful conviction rate or system efficiency.

My concern is that one side has given studies and stats and the other has only given emotion. I think there could be other stats or studies that counter the 10-2 side, but we’lol never know because we’ve rushed this to vote. (Btw, I would overwhelmingly support an 11-1 over either of these)

I'm still waiting for someone to provide the data that shows that people are being unfairly convicted of crimes. There is a narrative being pushed that focuses on reconstruction period history. "Criminal Justice Reforms" seems to focus on the criminal procedure and the penalty phase, and not the individual.

quote:

---

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.

---

When considering ultimate results, will this perceived limitation on gov't power in this instance make your family safer, or less so.

And if not, what will you do yourself to lessen the odds that are most certainly going to mount against them and others here if this thing passes.

In my view, having anything but a 12-0 is the definition of reasonable doubt.

The language on the books is incorrect and needs to be re-voted. Shocking this could happen in Louisiana.

quote:

---

The reason some republicans and DAs have come out on the side of unanimous juries recently is because they are in elected positions and are trying to pick the winning side.

---

Which DA’s have come out in support Amend 2?

That’s surprising considering the LDA has taken firm stance in opposition of Unanimous Juries.

quote:

---

In my view, having anything but a 12-0 is the definition of reasonable doubt.

---

Your view is incorrect. Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with the amount of people who vote a certain way.