- 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
Louisiana's Non-Unanimous Jury Verdict - SB243
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:24 pm
Bias Disclosure: I am a practicing criminal defense attorney, and changing from the current paradigm would make my life/job easier. All statements I make can and should be evaluated with that in mind.
As some of you may already know, Louisiana is the only state in the country that allows for a 10-2 verdict from a twelve person jury. We are one of only two states that allow for a non-unanimous verdict in any form (Oregon allows 11-1 in non-life cases). We are the only state that allows for a non-unanimous verdict in cases involving life sentences.
There are a host of articles from The Advocate and others discussing the historical reasons for how we got there, but this is a very short one: LINK
As the article states, Senator Morrell has presented SB243 which would place a Louisiana Constitutional amendment up for a popular vote in order require unanimous jury verdicts in felony cases. Details of the bill can be found here: LINK
His bill has been reported favorably and approved by the Senate and reported favorably from committee in the House. Assuming it passes all procedural requirements in both houses (including a supermajority voting in favor), it would then be put up to a statewide popular vote.
It's my opinion that, even if you can manage to ignore the overtly racist history behind our current paradigm, the fact that we allow the potentiality of non-unanimous jury verdicts is a stain on our state.
With that said, I am curious to see how people feel on the subject, and I'm happy to answer any questions I can.
Update: The proposed bill overwhelming passed in both chambers. It will be on the ballot on November 6th. LINK
As some of you may already know, Louisiana is the only state in the country that allows for a 10-2 verdict from a twelve person jury. We are one of only two states that allow for a non-unanimous verdict in any form (Oregon allows 11-1 in non-life cases). We are the only state that allows for a non-unanimous verdict in cases involving life sentences.
There are a host of articles from The Advocate and others discussing the historical reasons for how we got there, but this is a very short one: LINK
As the article states, Senator Morrell has presented SB243 which would place a Louisiana Constitutional amendment up for a popular vote in order require unanimous jury verdicts in felony cases. Details of the bill can be found here: LINK
His bill has been reported favorably and approved by the Senate and reported favorably from committee in the House. Assuming it passes all procedural requirements in both houses (including a supermajority voting in favor), it would then be put up to a statewide popular vote.
It's my opinion that, even if you can manage to ignore the overtly racist history behind our current paradigm, the fact that we allow the potentiality of non-unanimous jury verdicts is a stain on our state.
With that said, I am curious to see how people feel on the subject, and I'm happy to answer any questions I can.
Update: The proposed bill overwhelming passed in both chambers. It will be on the ballot on November 6th. LINK
This post was edited on 5/16/18 at 9:47 pm
35
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:29 pm to Joshjrn
Personally, I think we should keep it the way it is.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:30 pm to Joshjrn
I'm a believer that jury nullification is a legitimate tool of the citizenry, so I'm good with it.
This post was edited on 4/28/18 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:31 pm to Joshjrn
If 10 out of 12 find in favor of a verdict I’m good to let that verdict stand. Victim’s rights and all. I sat on a jury with one unreasonable juror that allowed a guilty molestor off the hook. It was a horrible experience.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:36 pm to Joshjrn
I would vote no.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:37 pm to ynlvr
If victim's rights were so harmed by unanimous jury verdicts, why is Louisiana the only state that requires 10/12?
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:38 pm to ynlvr
quote:
If 10 out of 12 find in favor of a verdict I’m good to let that verdict stand. Victim’s rights and all. I sat on a jury with one unreasonable juror that allowed a guilty molestor off the hook. It was a horrible experience.
A lone hold out wouldn't let anyone off of anything. It would simply result in a hung jury and a mistrial. The State could then retry the case.
You understand that a verdict of not guilty must meet the same standard as a verdict of guilty, right?
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:38 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Personally, I think we should keep it the way it is.
Why so?
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:41 pm to Joshjrn
I believe in the jury system wholeheartedly.
I believe that the change would make the system congruent logically to the legal standard. Not sure how it’s possible to have 2 no votes on conviction and argue that there is no reasonable doubt of guilt.
It should also be easier to get a jury trial in civil cases. The current jurisdictional limit allows too many non meritorious lawsuits to go forward and settled for too much money. Reducing, or even eliminating the amount required for a jury trial in Louisiana would do as much or more to reform the jusiciary on the civil side, and to protect civil defendants from extortion.
I believe that the change would make the system congruent logically to the legal standard. Not sure how it’s possible to have 2 no votes on conviction and argue that there is no reasonable doubt of guilt.
It should also be easier to get a jury trial in civil cases. The current jurisdictional limit allows too many non meritorious lawsuits to go forward and settled for too much money. Reducing, or even eliminating the amount required for a jury trial in Louisiana would do as much or more to reform the jusiciary on the civil side, and to protect civil defendants from extortion.
This post was edited on 4/28/18 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:42 pm to Joshjrn
ITT, a lot of small government folks will assert how they trust the State of Louisiana to continue to have the lowest juror threshold in America.
This post was edited on 4/28/18 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:44 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I think we should keep it the way it is.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:45 pm to NIH
quote:
lowest juror threshold in America.
Change this, and appoint judges for a non-lifetime term, and you have all the tort reform
You need in Louisiana.
Anyone who says justice is blind has never been sued in Orleans Parish.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:45 pm to LSURussian
Can you explain?
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:46 pm to Wednesday
quote:
I believe that the change would make the system logically to the legal standard. Not sure how it’s possible to have 2 no votes on conviction and argue that there is no reasonable doubt of guilt.
Even beyond that, I think the larger problem is the lack of discussion.
When a jury retires to deliberate, they first pick a foreman. Once they have a foreman, said foreman generally takes an initial vote. If that vote comes back 10-2 or better for any verdict (guilty as charged, guilty responsive, or not guilty), deliberations generally end. It doesn't matter that the two holdouts might have gone all Twelve Angry Men and convinced the entire jury that they were right. They never get the chance, because once they have their number, debate is over.
It's a travesty, in my opinion.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:47 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
It's a travesty, in my opinion.
Mine too.
This post was edited on 4/28/18 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:50 pm to Joshjrn
It's a hell of a sledgehammer for the prosecution to use when trying to figure out a plea.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:53 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Louisiana is the only state in the country
Louisiana finally leads the way!
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:54 pm to Wednesday
I thought California was non unanimous too?
I can see both sides. I prefer making it harder to convict, but non unanimous makes it harder to bribe or intimidate jurors because you have to get 3 instead of 1. There's also the flip side where you can have a 10-2 acquittal instead of a hung jury, so the state doesn't get another bite at the apple.
"Everyone else does it" isn't really a convincing argument.
That said, I would be on favor of the amendment. The jurors are going home after the trial but the verdict will have a major impact on the defendant's life. We need to take the time to get it right.
I can see both sides. I prefer making it harder to convict, but non unanimous makes it harder to bribe or intimidate jurors because you have to get 3 instead of 1. There's also the flip side where you can have a 10-2 acquittal instead of a hung jury, so the state doesn't get another bite at the apple.
"Everyone else does it" isn't really a convincing argument.
That said, I would be on favor of the amendment. The jurors are going home after the trial but the verdict will have a major impact on the defendant's life. We need to take the time to get it right.
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:55 pm to NIH
quote:
It's a hell of a sledgehammer for the prosecution to use when trying to figure out a plea.
They don't have to; they know we know.
Little known fact: Less serious felony cases are tried in front of a jury of six, and that vote has to be unanimous. That's right, ladies and gentleman. You can be convicted (or acquitted) of murder by 10-2 but not convicted (or acquitted) of Simple Burglary unless they reach 6-0. Not even the 5-1 that would be the same percentage.
Years ago, I did research into whether I could waive a 12 person jury and get a six. The answer is: while my client has the right to waive a jury entirely and be tried before the judge alone, they do not have the option of going from 12 to six. I have heard former prosecutors say that they would overbill cases just to get to a 12 person jury, even if they knew the jury would likely come back with a lesser responsive verdict, just so they got around unanimity.
This post was edited on 4/28/18 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 4/28/18 at 2:57 pm to Joshjrn
I think a 10-2 system is beneficial because it allows a margin of error in the verdict against dumbasses on the jury.
Page 1 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News