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

quote:

---

Those two nay-sayers could easily be someone who didnt pay attention, didnt care, had some type of internal bias for whatever reason

---

Or they might be the only two who didn’t

quote:

---

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?

---

With that said, how would this make you job/life easier?

I'm against changing it and I'll tell you why.
1st...if I committed a felony, I want it changed. Nits easier to be found not guilty or have a retrial (which lets be honest, very often things aren't retried for reasons of financial burdens and other obstacles that make it hard for a court to continue to retry.
2nd we do EVERYTHING else in this country thru a majority of some sort. Majority, super majority, etc are how laws are passed. It's how the constitution is amended. It's how political votes are counted. It's how basically every elected position in the US is decided. So why isnt it good enough for felony convictions? Plus, it has to be 10 out of 12..that's over 83% of a group must agree!

Sure, there are plenty of race baiting excuses that will be used. I understand part of the origins. But everything that happened back in that period that involved slaves/racism, is not and should not automatically be a bad thing.

Times have changed. There is no impartial juries anymore. All jurors can now Google anything they want and get both good and bad information on a case they are sitting on.

I have two questions for you about this. First, does passage mean that anyone convicted in the past by a non unanimous jury have grounds for a new trial? Second, are there any statistics available on how many cases are decided non-unanimously?

quote:

---

For this reason, I would vote yes

---

But then you say,

quote:

---

Those two nay-sayers could easily be someone who didnt pay attention, didnt care, had some type of internal bias for whatever reason, etc.

---

Wouldn't that be an argument to vote against?

quote:

---

Why was this bumped?

---

I don't understand the question.

quote:

---

He is asking why the thread was bumped.

---

Because the topic is back in the news with developments as of late.

Hence the need to speak further on it. Thank God someone actually used an existing thread to comment in instead of starting a new one

quote:

---

The idea of a single juror holding up a legitimate conviction, due to personality morality or whatever, is something I can't dismiss. I think the current rule disallows that to a degree.

---

there is no legitimate conviction other than 12-0...

I just noticed that this got bumped. To anyone who has quoted me or directly addressed me, I apologize for the inattention

LINK

Passed the House 82-15. Approved again by the Senate 28-7. The proposed Constitutional amendment will be up for a popular vote on November 6.

ETA: I apologize in advance for what will likely be several posts on my part as I try to catch up.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not playing dumb, and let's try to stay civil.

I agree with you that this change would likely result in more hung juries. How many more, I have no idea. However, a hung jury is not an acquittal. The individual can be retried. Further, not guilty verdicts would also require unanimity, so there are likely to be retrials in cases in which the current system would have handed out a 10-2 acquittal.

So, I ask again, how will required unanimity for any verdict, including not guilty result in more criminals being out on the streets?

Unless you want to make the same "but prosecutors are lazy and might not retry them" argument previously seen on this thread.