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

How fricking arrogant are you to a.) try to correct a criminal defense attorney on the system he works within b.) to come back here after obviously being caught in a lie.

quote:

---

However, do you think, had you spent a bit more time with them, that they likely would have come around to murder?

---

Ya I think we could have gotten them there perhaps.

But for someone who hasn't gone to law school, parsing the amount of goading if you will that lowers murder to manslaughter is difficult.

I tried to throw as many examples as I could that they use in law school, like the spouse finding the other cheating, to no avail

I believe it is a Constitutional imperative that we abolish the non-unanimous jury in ALL criminal cases. The standard of proof in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If even one person on that jury votes not-guilty, clearly there is still reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

If the worry is that biased members of the jury pool will obstruct and refuse to convict no matter what the facts are, then that means the prosecutor failed in their responsibility to strike biased potential jurors from the jury pool prior to trial.

Our justice system was founded on this strict standard for good reason. Our founding fathers were subjected to kangaroo courts, rigged by the crown to ensure they'd hang no matter what the facts. Our system was designed to prevent just that exact situation and instead place an undue burden on the prosecution.

The unanimous 6 man jury is used in moderate or relative felonies. Crimes where punishment may or may not be hard labor. You have to read the possible sentences to see if the case is a relative felony.

What is missed in this discussion is 95% of cases don’t go to trial. The murders require the unanimous verdict. The main factor in pleading a case is how many prior felonies they have. They can be multibilled and their sentence jumps up dramatically . They can “bitch,” your client. (File a habititual offender petition.) This is not going to change the amount of cases plea bargained.
It will be a slight advantage for defendants but most criminal defense lawyers will tell you most clients and crimes are based in drug addiction and if the crimes are not violent it seems harsh for most defendants to do decades in jail behind opioid addiction.

quote:

---

But for someone who hasn't gone to law school, parsing the amount of goading if you will that lowers murder to manslaughter is difficult.

I tried to throw as many examples as I could that they use in law school, like the spouse finding the other cheating, to no avail

---

In your opinion, did the prosecutor do a sufficient job covering that in jury selection and again in closing?

For those that want to follow along, this is the definition of manslaughter:

quote:

---

§31. Manslaughter

A. Manslaughter is:

(1) A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender's blood had actually cooled, or that an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed; or

(2) A homicide committed, without any intent to cause death or great bodily harm.

(a) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any felony not enumerated in Article 30 or 30.1, or of any intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person; or

(b) When the offender is resisting lawful arrest by means, or in a manner, not inherently dangerous, and the circumstances are such that the killing would not be murder under Article 30 or 30.1.

B. Whoever commits manslaughter shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years. However, if the victim killed was under the age of ten years, the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor, without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence, for not less than ten years nor more than forty years.

---

And as anyone who has been on a jury knows, you can ask to have that definition read to you as many times as you like. Now, if the jurors believed that the verbal altercation rose to the level such that the crime was committed "in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection" then that's their call. In fairness to them, it's not like this is a particularly bright line objective standard.

Ya, it was a few times. We actually came out of deliberation to have it re-read.

But as I'm sure anyone reading can see from the definition, a person can very easily say what would make them mad or whatever. I tried to say it's an objective standard, ie just because YOU wouldn't kill someone for cheating on you doesn't mean the incident isn't manslaughter or the opposite. But we're taught to think differently in school about these types of things.

I can't recall if I told them if they thought a verbal altercation was enough
for manslaughter then almost no one would be convicted of murder

I tried really hard not to steer the jury to my conclusion as I think having someone like an attorney on a jury can easily do that. So I made it a mission to not state my thoughts until others had. It probably led to the discussion being less organized at times but I'd rather that than me hijacking the whole thing.

I still felt like shite that night when I got home even though I believe the verdict was correct. It's a heavy burden sending someone to Angola for life.

quote:

---

However will I be able to sleep thinking someone on an anonymous message board might think less of me just because of an opinion I have?

Oh, the HORROR!!!!!

---

Dude. Relax. Generally speaking, you're one of my favorites on the board.

I just think that the idea that because you saw a couple assholes on a jury, we should be soft on "unreasonable doubt" is not your best use of logic.

And, I think that by definition, in general, if you can't convince 2 out of 12, then you have reasonable doubt.

The existence of the assholes on a particular jury doesn't negate that.

quote:

---

Do you recall what the argument was about? I’m just curious, as there’s a significant difference between “hey, you play ball like a girl” and “hey, I slept with your wife when you went on that business trip last week and she said it was the best frick she ever had”

---

Witnesses stated he was calling her a lot of names while standing over her (she was sitting on ground) and she wasn't saying much at all. From the testimony, I could only conclude that those jurors were assuming she must have said/done something to "set him off" that nobody had witnessed. But that evidence was never presented at trial and I don't recall if I reminded the other jurors or not that they were inferring something that wasn't in evidence.

In any event, this led me to look up what happened with him. His appeal was denied.

quote:

---

If even one person on that jury votes not-guilty, clearly there is still reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

---

I just want to reiterate that a juror doesn't necessarily vote "not guilty" if they don't agree with the verdict. They may think the defendant is guilty of a lesser included offense.

And in our case, if unanimous verdict was required, I would have put forth the effort as foreman to persuade those jurors to Murder 2. So it isn't really fair to look at a singular 10-2 verdict without proper context and state there was reasonable doubt or the person would have been acquitted, or would have been convicted of a lesser charge etc. We just didn't try to get there.

Of course, there is and can be larger issues with allowing such verdicts, more generally speaking.

I was actually very impressed with the jurors overall. There were some moments here and there that you expect with twelve stangers stuck in a small room over a 7/8 day trial, but all and all everyone was thoughtful and intelligent. Our jury was about half and half.