The New Orleans Democrat has proposed a constitutional amendment to require all 12 jurors in felony cases to agree on a verdict. The measure is gaining steam in the state Capitol.
GOP: We are for it as long as the jury is all white and Republican, possibly approved by NRA.
Reading this article, I suddenly lost track of what century we’re currently in.
However, it remains clear what century Louisiana is still in
Hopefully, they can undo this travesty and review the cases of those incarcerated by a less than unanimous jury decision.
Composition of the jury is probably just as important. Shouldn’t a trial of your peers imply that the jury should reflect its community in terms of race, gender, ethnicity in at least an approximate fashion?
You can think of this kind of law as an insurance policy. Even if you can’t get a full complement of prosecution stooges (and/or racists) on the jury, you can still get a conviction.
I like the way the opposition is entirely focused on how much it’s going to cost to run trials, nothing about possibly innocent people going to jail, or even about the additional costs of incarcerating all those people who otherwise wouldn’t have been found guilty.
The bill will have a tougher time getting through the Louisiana House which is loaded with “tough-on-crime” hardliners, but it’s the right and just way ahead.
I didn’t know they allowed a non-unanimous verdict to stand in criminal cases. They better change it. This is the only place in the country that does this and I’m surprised it’s constitutional.
Not to mention the restitution pay out, no wait does LA pay restitution to those they’ve held in prison that were not guilty?
According to the SCOTUS in the Batson case years ago, the jury should be made up of peers that reflect the community but the court refused to go further and talk about how to do that without quotas and they won’t entertain the idea of quotas.
“We are not making careful decisions of who is guilty,” she said.
Yeah that has been a problem for like 200 plus years.
Lets try something new and used,
like just shoot them and say it’s self defense because they were running away and might circle back to sneak up behind you.
They know it when they see it.
hahahahahahahahahaha yeah. Makes it interesting to try to argue Batson. I have. You get backed into a corner fast.
Judges often force jurors to continue deliberations for days, making them hash the issues out until holdouts fall in line or a deadlock ends the case with a hung jury.
GOD FORBID that we compel registered voters to spend a few extra days considering the possibility that an innocent person might be sent to FUCKING PRISON.
Let’s only have as much justice as can be provided by bored people waiting in line for coffee! It’s a fun new app I call “RuinALifeCrush” – swipe up to let the accused go about their business, but you better act fast: after 7 seconds, we haul them off to prison!
Let’s do the same with doctors, too. All the health you can get from your GP during a brush-pass on a city bus.
Usually when jury is hung, the judge will give them a jury charge that is like a blast of dynamite to get them to move on the verdict. They are called Allen Charges in Texas or were when I was doing it.
Nobody likes mistrials. Except the defendant.
So this happened featuring a would be George Zimmerman. The kid wasn’t hurt, the shooter’s in jail.
I read about that.
SMDH
Depends whom this is aimed at protecting. Now that the GOP themselves may be looking at serious felony convictions, we might find they’re suddenly eager to make it harder for the prosecution to deliver them.
Oregon also allows for conviction for felony without a unanimous verdict.
I had no idea. Wow.
Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution delegate all authority for state justice systems to the states? Even murder is not (in general) a federal crime. States can legalize murder as long as they do so in a way that doesn’t violate (federal) civil rights. Stand Your Ground laws are an example of states legalizing murder.