re: Louisiana's Non-Unanimous Jury Verdict - SB243

quote:

---

I thought California was non unanimous too?

---

That's a negative, Ghost Rider. And after a brief bit of research, it looks like California has always been unanimous in criminal juries, as they simply adopted the previous Common Law rule.

quote:

---

Can you explain?

---

Sure, but it's a long story.

I served on a jury and the vote was 10-2 to convict the defendant of aggravated arson. ("Aggravated arson" is when someone intentionally sets a fire and a reasonable person would believe someone might die in the fire.)

In our case, the defendant set fire to his landlord's house in the middle of the night while the landlord was asleep in his bed because the landlord was going to evict the scumbag for non-payment of his rent.

Two white women on the jury voted not guilty because they felt sorry for the defendant, who was black, because his lawyer focused on the hard life the guy had led. They put no thought into the evidence, just emotions.

Interestingly, two black men on the jury both voted guilty.

The main evidence was a recording of the defendant's confession. It was chilling to hear him talk about how he wanted to burn his landlord alive.

Unfortunately, the landlord, who saw the guy running away from his house carrying a gasoline can after the fire and smoke woke him up, was elderly at the time of the crime, had died of natural causes unrelated to the crime between the time the crime was committed and the start of our trial. So the only eyewitness wasn't there to testify against the scumbag which meant we didn't hear the landlord's story. We only learned about that after the trial ended and the verdict was rendered.

The two white women also believed the guy's story that the police had coerced his confession out of him. He got on the stand and told the courtroom that the police did not allow him to eat or drink anything for several days. The police, according to him, told him he could get food and water if he confessed.

The police and Asst. DA's who got the confession testified he was lying and that he confessed within minutes of the start of their questioning him. Some records kept of the questioning which were time stamped confirmed their version of the story. That didn't sway the women.

After the defendant was led out of the courtroom after the verdict was read the judge told us the full story about the defendant.

He had killed at least 2 people, including his own infant child, by setting them on fire. He was a firebug.

He told the child's mother, who was the only eyewitness to the child's murder and was the guy's common-law wife, that if she testified against him he would escape from prison and find her and set her and her other children on fire. So, she refused to testify against him meaning he was never tried for that murder due to a lack of witnesses and evidence.

The judge also told us this was the third time the murderer had been tried for this same crime and he was found guilty both times before. However, those verdicts were overturned on technicalities not involving the guy's guilt or innocence....just procedural bullshite.

Because he was never tried for those other murders, we were not allowed to hear any of that during the trial. For all we knew, this was the guy's first and only run-in with the law and it was the first time he was tried for it. And, as I said, we weren't allowed to hear the landlord's previous testimony at the earlier two trials.

If the case had required a unanimous verdict by the jury, it would have been a hung jury which would require a fourth trial. There was no question the guy was guilty. But he might have gone free if prosecutors had decided a fourth trial was a waste of time.

Instead, he was found guilty like I said by a vote of 10-2 and a few weeks later I saw in the paper he was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor (the maximum sentence allowed then for aggravated arson) in Angola.

Russian, I am by no means accusing you of lying. With that said...

Either you are misremembering some significant details, or the prosecutor and all previous judges in the case were woefully incompetent.

A motion for new trial is governed by La. C.Cr.P. Art. 851:

quote:

---

Art. 851. Grounds for new trial

A. The motion for a new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done the defendant, and, unless such is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied, no matter upon what allegations it is grounded.

B. The court, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever any of the following occur:

(1) The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.

(2) The court's ruling on a written motion, or an objection made during the proceedings, shows prejudicial error.

(3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty.

(4) The defendant has discovered, since the verdict or judgment of guilty, a prejudicial error or defect in the proceedings that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before the verdict or judgment.

(5) The court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served by the granting of a new trial, although the defendant may not be entitled to a new trial as a matter of strict legal right.

(6) The defendant is a victim of human trafficking or trafficking of children for sexual purposes and the acts for which the defendant was convicted were committed by the defendant as a direct result of being a victim of the trafficking activity.

Amended by Acts 1974, No. 207, §1; Acts 2014, No. 564, §6.

---

As you can see, these aren't minor, ticky tack things. In short, there can't simply be a frick up; the frick up has to be such that it was actually prejudicial to the defendant. Believe me when I say this is a massive hurdle to clear. If this man got multiple new trials, people were fricking up on a level that must have been staggering.

On a separate issue, the prosecutor would have had to have been utterly incompetent to not get in the prior testimony of the complainant. A situation in which someone previously testified but is now deceased clearly falls within La. C.E. Art. 804, which are exceptions to the hearsay rule in which the declarant is unavailable. In this case, the complainant would have been considered unavailable under A(4) and the testimony would have been covered under B(1). LINK

quote:

---

Any overturned convictions that we can point to to suggest the current system is getting it wrong?

---

Yes.

Out of curiosity, for those of you who believe 10-2 is good, would you also be ok with 9-3? How about 8-4? 7-5?

quote:

---

Dog shite laws like this is why we lead the world in incarceration rates.

---

Is it possible we have a greater rate of crime commission?

quote:

---

If the DAs Association is opposed then I'm a yes vote.

Dog shite laws like this is why we lead the world in incarceration rates.

---

The DA's Association was original opposed, but now hold no official position. Want to know why?

Because the policy of the DA's Association is not to take a public position on legislation unless it is voted on unanimously by its members. Some of the state's DAs are dissenting, so the Association is taking no public position.

I'll let you enjoy that bit of irony

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, for those of you who believe 10-2 is good, would you also be ok with 9-3? How about 8-4? 7-5?

---

Let’s go the other way. Perhaps the state should have to pay for and convince 15, 20 or 30 jurors unanimously of every crime or else the defendants get to go free.

quote:

---

Is it possible we have a greater rate of crime commission?

---

Really not a relevant anymore, we cant afford to lock everybody up like the good ol days.

quote:

---

Let’s go the other way. Perhaps the state should have to pay for and convince 15, 20 or 30 jurors unanimously of every crime or else the defendants get to go free.

---

Except that isn't actually a corollary. The issue is that jurors can ignore and refuse to debate with dissenting voices. If you read back in this thread, you will see where I said I would prefer try a case before a six person jury than a twelve person jury.

And again, no one is going free due to hung juries. That's the most absurd, insidious bit of misinformation I've seen get trotted out in quite some time.