- 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
Supreme Court decision could lead La. to retry 1,000’s of old criminal cases
Posted on 3/21/19 at 12:49 am
Posted on 3/21/19 at 12:49 am
Let my people go...
LINK /
LINK /
quote:
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - If the U.S. Supreme Court reverses a prior decision and bans non-unanimous jury convictions, Louisiana prosecutors say they may have to retry thousands of cases or let some inmates out of prison.
On Monday, Mar. 18, the high court agreed to hear arguments from a Louisiana man who was convicted, 10 to 2, of second degree murder in 2016. Evangelisto Ramos was sentenced to life without parole for killing a woman and stuffing her body in a garbage can in New Orleans on Thanksgiving eve in 2014.
But Ramos’ attorneys argue the evidence for his conviction was circumstantial, and they now want the Supreme Court to decide if states can uphold non-unanimous convictions for people who are still appealing their conviction.
In 1972, the court ruled that federal juries must be unanimous in their convictions, but allowed states to decide if they would play by the same rules. Louisiana and Oregon were the only states that allowed split jury decisions before Louisiana voters overwhelmingly amended the state’s constitution in November of 2018 to ban the practice.
“There are thousands of people who had been convicted in Louisiana under a system that had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said in an interview with WAFB Tuesday. “You would basically have to retry all these cases, for which witnesses may be gone and people involved may be deceased. It’s problematic.”
quote:
Louisiana’s new law is prospective, meaning it only applies to convictions handed down after the law took effect, but if the court overturns its 1972 opinion, it could open the door for appeals. East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore says about 25 percent of his district’s cases were decided by a 10 to 2 or 11 to 1 jury.
“How wide does the door open? Does the Supreme Court even open that door? How in the heck is the system going to keep up with that?” Moore asked Tuesday. “You’re talking about drowning in the number of cases that would be opened.”
7
Posted on 3/21/19 at 12:53 am to TOKEN
Well your state is about to become much more of a shithole
Posted on 3/21/19 at 1:03 am to lsu480
10-2 convictions make a state a shithole.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 1:24 am to TOKEN
Yeah, that'll be a no. Keep their asses locked up.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 5:09 am to TOKEN
quote:
Louisiana’s new law is prospective, meaning it only applies to convictions handed down after the law took effect
I don’t think this is accurate. The new law only apples to crimes that took place starting this year. So 10-2 is still being practiced and will be for quite some time.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 5:51 am to lsu480
quote:
Well your state is about to become much more of a shithole
Hey! It may be a soggy shite sandwich, but it’s my soggy shite sandwich.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 6:17 am to TOKEN
quote:
bans non-unanimous jury convictions
Unanimous juries for death sentence only
Posted on 3/21/19 at 6:38 am to TOKEN
1. Dear God Jeff Landry is in charge of the argument?
2. Finality of judgments is fundamental to the existence of the court system. I agree with the change of the law, but it makes no sense to apply it retrospectively. if you allowed this rule to be applied to cases that have already been tried, any time a procedural rule changed it would have to be applied in reverse. We’d never be able to change procedural rules under that logic.
3. This dude’s conviction was on appeal so his judgment wasn’t final. He would have a point had he appealed his conviction on the issue that somehow the 10-2 rule was unconstitutional. But that’s not what he did. He said that a law (which has been recognized as constitutional) that didn’t exist when he was tried - should have been applied. That makes no sense.
I predict Landry wins by accident. Not because he argues that there will be too many trials of old cases.
2. Finality of judgments is fundamental to the existence of the court system. I agree with the change of the law, but it makes no sense to apply it retrospectively. if you allowed this rule to be applied to cases that have already been tried, any time a procedural rule changed it would have to be applied in reverse. We’d never be able to change procedural rules under that logic.
3. This dude’s conviction was on appeal so his judgment wasn’t final. He would have a point had he appealed his conviction on the issue that somehow the 10-2 rule was unconstitutional. But that’s not what he did. He said that a law (which has been recognized as constitutional) that didn’t exist when he was tried - should have been applied. That makes no sense.
I predict Landry wins by accident. Not because he argues that there will be too many trials of old cases.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 7:48 am to TOKEN
quote:
If the U.S. Supreme Court reverses a prior decision and bans non-unanimous jury convictions,
This would fly in the face of the 10th Amendment as there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government authority over jury decisions in state-level cases.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 7:49 am to TigersSEC2010
I was on a jury when the OJ verdict came out. This dude got caught selling pills in a bar by bouncers, he ran to the parking lot before the cops got there and then wrecked into parked cars trying to escape. The cops caught him with the pills. We had blacks on the jury, black women, that said the pills were planted by the cops and they let him go free.
In many cases, a black person will not convict someone. The guy in the case above was white but still the blacks on the jury will not convict. Just like the case in Jackson Ms where they wouldn’t convict the rapist and muderer of the girl that was burned to death , even when her blood was found on his clothes.
In many cases, a black person will not convict someone. The guy in the case above was white but still the blacks on the jury will not convict. Just like the case in Jackson Ms where they wouldn’t convict the rapist and muderer of the girl that was burned to death , even when her blood was found on his clothes.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 7:50 am to TOKEN
quote:
If the U.S. Supreme Court reverses a prior decision and bans non-unanimous jury convictions, Louisiana prosecutors say they may have to retry thousands of cases or let some inmates out of prison.
The supreme court should not do this.
Louisiana already banned 10-2 convictions in a ballot referendum last year and the Supreme Court should respect the governmental interest in maintaining public order by not drowning our legal system in more cases being retried and letting dangerous inmates out of prison.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 7:57 am to Wtodd
quote:
Unanimous juries for death sentence only
Nope.
Louisiana now requires unanimous convictions for all non-capital felony crimes, not just death penalty cases.
LINK
And it's a good change that was badly needed for a long time.
But the Supreme Court should not make it retroactive as that's too damaging to the governmental interest of maintaining public order.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News