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

quote:

---

The whole, "it'll put criminals on the streets" argument is some kind of single variable liberal thinking. OF COURSE it will.

---

Well not only that, but we know even with unanimous verdicts many innocent people aew convicted and we know many more innocent people plead guilty because of the severity of the charges and lack of resources to adequately fight them. So I'm sure wrongful convictions are more prevalent in Lousiana, but I bet those pleas are wher the increase is more substantial.

But the stance I really can't understand is those who say a guilty person going free is worse than a wrongful conviction. 100% of the time a person is wrongfully convicted, a guilty person went free. So every wrongful conviction results in two injustices.

And when it's easier to convict innocent people, it's also easier to take the lazy route and focus solely on the first or most immediately obvious person (often innocent) on the radar and not do a thorough investigation.

So if a unanimous verdict only results in more due diligence from the police and prosecutors, then it's worth it in the end.

quote:

---

At least they can now vote once they get out of prison thanks to today’s vote at the state capitol. ??

---

Unless a person is convicted of voter fraud or something quite similar, why shouldn't they be able to vote? It doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose regardless of the school of thought regarding punishment.

quote:

---

Your old school guys still like to pick juries by demographic, but in my experience, it's more likely to cause you pain than help you. If you're using it as any more than a tiebreak, you're probably doing it wrong.

---

I’m curious to know what methods you use to pick jurors if not demographics? Not that I disagree with the notion that the use of demographics is an unreliable method.

And I’ll add that if demographics are going to be used, picking white liberals is probably a wise defense strategy, but not if the defendant is a white male.

quote:

---

I’m curious to know what methods you use to pick jurors if not demographics?

---

By having a conversation with them and actually listening to what they say. Though I appreciate that’s vastly more easily said than done

quote:

---

how much is a return to some semblance of treating police officers like the fallible human beings they are, particularly in light of some of the more recent “hot mic” scandals involving body worn cameras?

---

The first thing I’ll say is that you’re probably a gifted lawyer. I can tell by the way you can caress words to shade truths in a favorable way. In case it’s not clear, I mean that as a compliment.

My observations:

1) People are fallible, and often self-deluded and prejudicial,

2) Cops are people, so that includes them,

3) There are some jurors who give cops more credence because they are cops

4). There are some jurors who give cops less credence (or no credence) because they are cops

5) Prosecutors (and cops) are supposed to be seeking the truth, but they often get invested in winning their case and become myopic.

6) Defense attorneys seek the best result for their clients. They employ truth like a tool, only as needed when appropriate for their purpose.

Regarding the “need” to take police off of their pedestal, I think that’s a defense lawyer’s “truthy” notion. It’s sort of true. Or true in some cases.

I think it’s a bigger problem to get their reputation out of the gutter for many people who hold anti-cop beliefs.

quote:

---

Personally, I think we should keep it the way it is.

---

Agreed...otherwise, all a defense attourney has to do is get a ‘sympathetic person’ (read: same race) on the jury.

Jurors are certainly an interesting bunch. I find it fascinating watching human beings get torn between their desire to tell the truth (especially because they are under oath) and their desire to look good in front of other people.

I’ve seen people swear up and down during jury selection that they would not hold it against the defendant if they chose not to testify. Then after the verdict is returned, they all talk about how they just couldn’t get past the fact that the defendant didn’t testify.

If the law wasn’t so terrible when it comes to getting a new trial based on statements jurors make after verdict, I guarantee judges wouldn’t let us anywhere near them

quote:

---

I was seated next to her, she told me "they know I'm on jury duty, this verdict can't be unanimous, and y'all don't need it to be"

---

I have no reason to doubt your anecdote, but I actually find it less persuasive based on what I quoted. In the current paradigm, there is no need for unanimity, so you’re going to have people pull stunts like that. What do you think the odds are that she would have maintained that for the next several days while 11 people applied pressure on her?

I’ll reiterate the study I mentioned earlier that anticipates a 6% increase in the already very low number of hung juries, and that’s the study being passed around prosecutorial circles, not defense.

my acquaintances in the criminal defense bar generally support

they believe it will give them better negotiation leverage

I'll still vote to keep non-unanimous jury verdicts.