GOOD NEWS | BAD NEWS, part 2

BAD NEWS

I don't think anyone looks forward to hearing bad or unfortunate news. Plus if you're anything like me, you think the worst when you hear ‘bad news’ mentioned in anyway. However, hearing ill-fated news is a part of life.

Thanks for viewing/reading "Much Love, Soul" again this month. As much as I'd like to NOT spoil the previously stated good news with unlucky news, it wouldn't be fair to the Reader to not have this information also.

So, what's the bad news, you ask? The bad news is that roughly 1,500 inmates (including myself) are still behind bars from non-unanimous jury convictions. For all of my non-legal scholars, the phrase "non-unanimous jury convictions" means that after all 12 jurors casted their votes, up to 2 of them casted a vote of “not guilty”. In almost any other state such a conclusion was/is a demonstration of ‘reasonable doubt’ or an example of a ‘hung jury’ that typically results in the case being retried.

Now you're probably asking yourself "Is it legal for someone to be convicted with a hung jury?" and the answer is "No, not now". However, it was legal in Louisiana from 1898 – 2020 (you read that right). Probably like most people, I always assumed that all 12 jurors had to find any person guilty for them to be "guilty". I think that assumption came from television shows and the fact that, at the time I was convicted, only two states in this country allowed a non-unanimous jury verdict (Louisiana and Oregon).

In a statewide November 2018 ballot, Louisiana voters voted out the use of non-unanimous juries in the state constitution. Then in April 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this practice unconstitutional and forbid its use from that moment on. But it didn't specifically address the 1500 inmates currently serving time in Louisiana state prisons who were convicted by non-unanimous juries before this practice was outlawed. In other words while the ruling acknowledges convictions by a non-unanimous jury is unconstitutional for all states in the US (including Louisiana and Oregon), apparently it remains ‘constitutional’ for those of us found guilty by a non-unanimous jury before 2020. If it’s unconstitutional for cases tried after 2020, why would it not also be unconstitutional for all cases regardless of when the trial happened? Don't you agree?

This is why I called this segment Bad News. And what's worst is the practice of legalized non-unanimous juries is a byproduct of the Jim Crow era; review the following articles for more information on that connection: NOLA.com | U.S. Supreme Court refuses to make Louisiana ban on non-unanimous juries retroactive; and U.S.News | Doc Tells Story of La. Man Convicted by Non-Unanimous Jury.

As you are reading these words, some “remedies” are being crafted that has the potential to address the plight of some of these 1500 men and women behind bars from a non-unanimous jury conviction, but it also has the potential to keep things the same. Take for instance Louisiana's House Bill 744. HB744 allows those convicted with a non-unanimous jury verdict prior to 2018 to apply for a review by a board. A five-member commission, appointed by the governor, would include three retired appellate or Supreme Court justices, a retired district attorney and a retired public defender.

The five would review the case file, looking at factors such as the strength of the case, the nature of the offense, the quality of counsel, any indications of racial animus, length of deliberations and whether the non-unanimity was the result of jurors voting to acquit. If all members of the board agree, that person could become eligible for a parole hearing that could lead to their release.

On the surface that might seem equitable, but please don't be fooled. Just to expose two potential conflicts in House Bill 744: This five-member commission will be making decisions that could potentially have a negative impact on the legacy of their own work because, as retired judges and attorneys, they are members of the very same system that presided over and upheld these 1500 non-unanimous jury convictions in the first place. The other conflict is this board has to "agree" -- unanimously 😁-- on the outcome. Again, it appears equitable on the surface, but a quote from Representative Randal L. Gaines (Democrat and lawyer from LaPlace, LA) reveals a different perspective: "No other court in the federal or state system requires unanimity of judges sitting on a panel. From a state court of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, cases are decided by the majority of judges on a panel."

Looking at bad news objectively, it can offer the receiver some information about a problem that they can hopefully help to solve. Not enough people know the detail and impact of this truth I just shared around the non-unanimous jury. This is where YOU come in. Maybe we can help turn this bad news -- into fortunate news! I'm petitioning every reader to share this information/post with at least 3 people who hasn't already read it. That way we can spread the news of this unfair, ugly Jim Crow practice. Hopefully we can make this subject go viral, raising awareness and pushing for the only thing that makes sense with making this right -- making the law retroactive, unconstitutional for ALL.

I thank you in advance for your assistance and support in spreading the word.

Much Love, Soul