- 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
0
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:41 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
Then the onus is once again on the prosecutor not to overcharge the defendant.
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:43 pm to Parmen
quote:
How is jury instruction done in Louisiana? Do you use civil law for criminal, or common law like the rest of us?
Parmen, I just noticed I never replied to this. Would you rephrase the question, particularly as it pertains to instructing the jury? I think I know where you’re going, but I would like to be sure.
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:43 pm to kingbob
quote:
Then the onus is once again on the prosecutor not to overcharge the defendant.
Well, specifically speaking to our case. When 10 agree with murder 2 and two did not, I don't think I can state the prosecutor overcharged.
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:46 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Wait, the facts were simply that he was berating her while she sat there in silence and then he killed her?
More like yes/no/nodding responses to him.
And ya, it was a bit frustrating. I can't recall the prosecutor's close but I also think it's hard to account for people's assumptions.
For instance, we all do it. We assume someone responded to stimuli the same way we do in some rational manner. However, clearly certain people are very irrational because they commit fricking murder
, so using your own mindset/logic is largely not applicable to the situation you're using it on. These people were basically saying to themselves, "I'd never get so mad to kill someone unless they did something to me" Which kinda ignores the sad reality that some people will murder you over your shoes (victim was not killed over shoes, just an example).
This post was edited on 4/29/18 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:48 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Well, specifically speaking to our case. When 10 agree with murder 2 and two did not, I don't think I can state the prosecutor overcharged.
Also, there’s no real reason not to overcharge in Louisiana, as we allow for responsive verdicts.
I’m on my phone, so I’m not going to attempt to copy, paste, and format, but here is the codal article:
LINK
For those who don’t know what this is, it’s a list of every crime a jury can come back with a verdict of guilty on for every crime charged. So for second degree murder, they can come back with second degree murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide, so on and so forth.
This post was edited on 4/29/18 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:51 pm to Joshjrn
Ya, found out after the fact he was offered 40 years or something to plea guilty on manslaughter but decided for trial. Makes sense since that was basically a life sentence anyways.
This post was edited on 4/29/18 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 4/29/18 at 4:52 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
Yeah, probably decided it was better to take a shot at trial, go for a manslaughter conviction, and see if you can get the judge to come down on the lower end of the 10-40 range.
Posted on 4/29/18 at 5:47 pm to Joshjrn
You are correct, I was being careless and stand corrected.
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:05 pm to Joshjrn
This bill was put up by criminal defense lawyers to make their job easier. It will put criminals on the streets.....
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:09 pm to russpot
quote:
This bill was put up by criminal defense lawyers to make their job easier.
Citation?
quote:
It will put criminals on the streets.....
How so?
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:15 pm to LSURussian
quote:
And I disagree. Fair enough?
You disagree that generally speaking, for fairly normal juries, if 16% remain unconvinced, that's a decent sign of reasonable doubt? I mean, we're not going to assume that the norm is for juries to include 2 intransigent assholes are we?
But yes. Fair enough. I just do feel like you're letting anecdote drive a decision which I find unusual for you.
This post was edited on 4/29/18 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:18 pm to ShortyRob
No citation necessary. I spoke to the criminal defense lawyer who drew the bill up. He wrote it.He is laughing about how successful it has been.. name? . Leesville.....
This post was edited on 4/29/18 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:20 pm to russpot
quote:
No citation necessary. I spoke to the criminal defense lawyer who drew the bill up. He wrote it.He is laughing about how successful it has been.. name? . Leesville.....
I know (the person you have now edited out), and I'm perfectly comfortable calling you a liar.
This post was edited on 4/29/18 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:23 pm to Joshjrn
I just don't understand some of the "logic" in this thread.
It's SUPPOSED to be hard to convict a person and deprive them of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
By definition, our system has ALWAYS recognized that we will fail to convict some bad guys because we set a high bar.
Given that even with this high bar all over the nation, we STILL manage to put people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, it seems odd to have a lower bar than everyone else.
The whole, "it'll put criminals on the streets" argument is some kind of single variable liberal thinking. OF COURSE it will.
But that's no standard. I mean, I know how we can basically convict 100% of the time if you're willing to accept shite tons of innocent people going to jail. But hey, we'd get pretty much all the bad guys then!!!
It's SUPPOSED to be hard to convict a person and deprive them of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
By definition, our system has ALWAYS recognized that we will fail to convict some bad guys because we set a high bar.
Given that even with this high bar all over the nation, we STILL manage to put people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, it seems odd to have a lower bar than everyone else.
The whole, "it'll put criminals on the streets" argument is some kind of single variable liberal thinking. OF COURSE it will.
But that's no standard. I mean, I know how we can basically convict 100% of the time if you're willing to accept shite tons of innocent people going to jail. But hey, we'd get pretty much all the bad guys then!!!
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:28 pm to ShortyRob
You must be a dumb democrat......check it out.....
Posted on 4/29/18 at 6:29 pm to russpot
quote:
You must be a dumb democrat.
russpot
LSU Fan
alexandria
Member since Jul 2007
417 posts
Online
Alter
Posted on 4/30/18 at 10:35 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Parmen, I just noticed I never replied to this. Would you rephrase the question, particularly as it pertains to instructing the jury? I think I know where you’re going, but I would like to be sure.
From what I understand, in common law areas, the two parties submit requests for jury instructions to the judge who ultimately decides how the bench will instruct the jury, pretty much posing the question to them that they must answer. Is this similar to how Louisiana does it?
I know Louisiana has some sort of civil law hybrid system.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 9:05 am to Joshjrn
quote:That person makes that very claim. What is untrue about russpot's statement?
I know (the person you have now edited out), and I'm perfectly comfortable calling you a liar.
I honestly do not get the support for this change. Way too many people out there who will not convict no matter what and are dishonest during Voir Dire.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 9:18 am to Joshjrn
quote:quote:
It will put criminals on the streets.....
How so?
Look, I don't really have a problem with the amendment, but don't play dumb.
There will be fewer convictions. The hope is that these those not convicted under the new system are more likely to not be guilty than those convicted by unanimous juries.
But clearly:
1. There will be fewer convictions.
2. Some of those not convicted will be guilty.
Now it may be worth it because (hopefully) a larger percentage of those not convicted are "innocent".
This tilts the scales of justice toward protecting the innocent and away from punishing the guilty. And if thought it leaned too much toward punishing the guilty you can see this as a good thing.
But don't ignore what it is.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News