Bill requiring unanimous jury verdicts moves closer to reality

30th April 2018   ·   0 Comments

By Drew White
Contributing Writer

(LSU Manship School News Service) — Louisiana lawmakers made progress Wednesday toward allowing voters to determine whether felony cases should require unanimous verdicts, a change that supporters say would preserve defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.

Louisiana is one of two states — joined by Oregon — that allow non-unanimous verdicts to decide the outcome of felony cases. Only 10 votes on a 12-person jury is now required for a conviction.

Members of the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice voted unanimously Wednesday for a bill that would put the referendum on a fall ballot and give voters a chance to reverse a state law instituted in 1880. The bill, which has already passed the Senate, now heads to the House floor.

“This is a very important and historic piece of legislation, because I would venture to say that in our lifetime we will never face an opportunity like this — an opportunity to repeal a law that goes back to the Jim Crow-era in Louisiana,” said Ed Tarpley, a former district attorney of Grant Parish.

“It’s the unanimous jury of 12 citizens that makes a decision about whether to deprive someone of their liberty,” he added. “It’s a powerful protection we have in our government.”

But Sabine Parish District Attorney Don Burkett said that although the Louisiana District Attorneys Association did not take an official position on the bill, the state’s district attorneys are overwhelmingly opposed to the change.

Louisiana previously had unanimous jury verdicts in trials from 1803 to 1880, but the law was changed in the post-Reconstruction era.

In 1898, lawmakers attached non-unanimous jury verdicts in felony cases to the state constitution, requiring nine out of 12 to determine whether a defendant was guilty or would be acquitted.

During a constitutional convention in 1974, the vote was changed to 10 out of 12 jurors.

Because the proposed bill would amend the constitution, the measure would have to be ratified by Louisiana voters.

Supporters of the change say that the current-split verdict system makes it easier for prosecutors to obtain convictions and has sent more people to jail in a state that
has been criticized for having the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the nation.

Marjorie Esman, former executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said “countless studies have shown time and time again that juries that have to deliver non-unanimous verdicts ask fewer questions, take less time to deliberate, and essentially rush to a decision in a way they would not do if it had to be unanimous.”

She recalled her time spent on a jury in Orleans Parish when she was not convinced there was sufficient evidence, but her fellow jurors wanted to “get out of there quickly.”

“I had legitimate doubts that I did not get to express, and the woman got a sentence I don’t think she deserved,” Esmond said.

Sen. J.P. Morrell, D-New Orleans, the author of the bill, said that Louisiana has “the fastest jury deliberations in the country.”

Burkett, the Sabine Parish district attorney, spoke in opposition to the bill, arguing that requiring a unanimous jury would make court deliberations more difficult because “some people have personal agendas.”

“They get on there, and there’s something about that case or their makeup that they’re not going to vote guilty regardless of the facts of the law,” Burkett said

“If one person gets on a jury with a hidden agenda and votes not guilty, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t prove reasonable doubt,” he added.

John DeRozier, district attorney of Calcasieu Parish and opponent of the bill, cautioned committee members to make their decision on whether the measure was the best thing to do for the judicial system.

“I’ve heard a lot about this system being adopted as a result of the vestige of slavery—I have no reason to doubt that,” DeRozier said. “I’m not proud of that—the way it started—but it is what it is.”

Members of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus scolded DeRozier for his comments.

“I am so utterly offended for you to start your comments and say that I know this is rooted in slavery, but it is what it is,” said Rep. Ted James, D-Baton Rouge. “You are elected to represent everybody.”

Rep. Denise Marcelle, D-Baton Rouge, chided DeRozier. “If you’re not African-American, then perhaps you think it’s okay,” she said. “But it’s not okay because some of my ancestors were in slavery, and it’s a problem.”

Rep. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, stated that he had not heard a good reason why the law should remain.

“All I’ve heard here is that one or two people can make your job more difficult,” said Duplessis.

This article originally published in the April 30, 2018 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.