Skip to main content

Louisiana DAs warned unanimous verdicts would cause a slew of hung juries. Did it happen?

Six years ago, Louisianans were weighing the merits of requiring juries to arrive at unanimous verdicts, then the law in every other state save for Oregon.

The most vocal opposition to the idea came from district attorneys, some of whom warned that a slew of hung-jury verdicts would result if Louisiana stopped allowing convictions on 10-2 or 11-1 votes.

Louisiana voters didn’t think much of the argument: The measure to require unanimity passed by a nearly two-thirds margin. More than a thousand jury trials have taken place in the state in the years since.

Data about those trials compiled by The Times-Picayune and The Advocate shows that the tsunami of mistrials resulting from juries that couldn’t agree never materialized. In fact, the rate of hung-jury verdicts hasn’t budged at all in the years since voters changed the law.

The newspaper asked district attorneys and clerks of court in Louisiana’s busiest judicial districts for a list of jury trials since the law went into effect. Seven of them, together accounting for more than half the trials conducted in the state each year, complied.

According to the analysis, those districts have tried at least 542 cases before 12-member juries. Just 4.4% of those juries – 24 in total – couldn’t agree on a verdict on at least one charge.

A similar but larger analysis, conducted by the newspaper before the law was changed, found a hung-jury rate of 4.6%. That survey included nearly 2,000 cases tried before 12-member juries between 2011 and 2016.

The difference in the rate of hung juries before and after unanimity was required is statistically insignificant. Essentially, it’s identical.

That doesn’t mean the change in the law hasn’t had any effect on the justice system. Prosecutors and defense attorneys say it’s had a range of impacts: Longer deliberations. More cautious jury selection. In some cases, more fulsome plea discussions. And perhaps more “compromise” verdicts, with juries convicting defendants on less serious charges when unanimity on the stiffest charge is elusive.

“I don’t think it’s really changed that much,” said James Stewart, the longtime district attorney in Caddo Parish. “We were always taught to try and get 12 out of 12 because you never know who’s on that jury. Now, we’re maybe a little more careful in jury selection, because you can’t afford a mistake.”

Stewart, a former judge, was an outspoken supporter of changing the law back in 2018. He believed Louisiana should do things like the rest of the states, and he wasn’t very worried about a spike in hung juries.

His lack of concern on that point was well-founded. In Caddo Parish, just two out of 131 cases tried by the end of last year and after the new rule was in effect have resulted in hung verdicts, according to a list of cases provided by the district attorney.

“For jurors, knowing they’ve got to have 12 of 12, I think the difference is they have to spend more time discussing the evidence than they used to,” Stewart said. “And I think that mostly works out for the best.”

A slow beginning


Louisiana’s new unanimity law was passed by voters in late 2018, and it took effect Jan. 1, 2019.

But it only applied to trials involving crimes committed after the law went into effect. Because of the typical lag time between the commission of a crime and a trial, very few 2019 trials applied the new standard.

The change wasn’t fully imposed until the Supreme Court issued its blockbuster ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana on April 20, 2020. That decision upended a 1972 ruling that found split jury verdicts were constitutional.

From that day forward, all jury verdicts in Louisiana have had to be unanimous, regardless of when the crime at issue was committed. The Ramos decision was not retroactive, meaning hundreds of Louisiana inmates are still serving sentences meted out in cases with split jury verdicts.

But Ramos did apply to cases that had not gone through final appeals, and that led to scores of relatively recent cases having to be retried because the original verdict was not unanimous. That number included dozens of cases that had been tried, but not settled unanimously, after voters passed the new law.

In the jury room


It’s impossible to say definitively how the unanimity rule has affected deliberations, since every case is different and discussions occur behind closed doors.

But prosecutors and defense lawyers interviewed for this story said they are sure that deliberations are taking longer. They speculate that in many cases, the juror or jurors listed as holdouts under the old system are now being persuaded to join the majority.

That’s what happened in the case of Kevin Tasker, a Baton Rouge man who killed a friend in a 2020 argument. Tasker, who was charged with second-degree murder, admitted shooting his friend, but said he acted in self-defense as the two tussled on the pavement.

The East Baton Rouge Parish jury deliberated for nearly two hours, and came out to ask a question of the 19th District Judge Fred Crifasi about the differences between second-degree murder and manslaughter.

A half-hour later, the jury returned a manslaughter verdict. In an interview with The Advocate, forewoman Megan Varnado said 11 jurors had settled on manslaughter fairly quickly, but one woman felt a murder verdict was more appropriate.

Varnado, whose account was echoed by a second juror, said the jury’s decision stemmed in part from its view that the case was complicated — the killing wasn’t premeditated, and the men had been fighting. Jurors knew murder meant life without parole, while manslaughter gave the judge wide discretion: anything from 0 to 40 years.

“There was such a difference in the sentences — mandatory life for murder, whereas in manslaughter, the judge can say, ‘This is what I think of it,” Varnado said. ““We felt comfortable that judge would get in there and give him an appropriate sentence. We felt like he would have a really good feel for how much time this guy deserved.”

In the end, the reluctant juror came around. Crifasi later sentenced Tasker to 30 years.

'I don't have that luxury anymore'


Michael Kennedy, a New Orleans defense lawyer, said he’s seen similar impacts from the new law.

It’s led to more considered deliberations, he believes. But hopes on the defense bar that lonely voices for acquittal would sometimes win over a whole panel – as in “Twelve Angry Men” – have rarely been realized, Kennedy said.

“It was rare in the old system that you got a 12-0 conviction, and we were hoping that the one or two would hold fast, and you’d not get a conviction,” Kennedy said. “But that hasn’t really happened.”

On the other hand, he and many other lawyers think such disagreements in the age of unanimity have led to more compromise verdicts – usually, a conviction on a lesser charge.

The new law “does lend itself to more compromise verdicts,” said New Orleans defense lawyer John Fuller. “Whether that’s always a good thing for a defendant is hard to say,” he added, noting that the result of a “compromise” is still often a lengthy prison stay.

Scott Perrilloux, the longtime district attorney for the 21st Judicial District, which includes Tangipahoa, Livingston and St. Helena parishes, said he believes the changed law has given defendants a better bargaining position in plea negotiations.

“There was a day where there was two jurors I didn’t have to get,” Perrilloux said. “I don’t have that luxury anymore.”

Don Burkett, the veteran district attorney for Sabine Parish and one of the leading voices in opposition to the unanimity law back in 2018, said he’s made his peace with things.

“Getting 12 people to agree on anything is so difficult in today’s world,” Burkett said. “I always felt like 10 out of 12 ... if that’s not beyond a reasonable doubt, what is? But I lost that argument, and I’m OK with that.“

Source: nola.com, Gordon Russell, May 26, 2024

_____________________________________________________________________








"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."

— Oscar Wilde



Most viewed (Last 7 days)

Kansas AG urges governor to deny clemency to 8 sentenced to death

TOPEKA — Attorney General Kris Kobach on Tuesday urged the governor to deny clemency to Kansas inmates who have been sentenced to death. Eight of nine people sentenced to death in Kansas formally filed clemency requests in May, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s Office. Kobach urged Gov. Laura Kelly to reject them.

Idaho will soon turn to firing squad executions. Police will pull the triggers

Trained members of Idaho law enforcement with demonstrated firearms proficiency are expected to fill slots for carrying out the death penalty by firing squad as the state prison system transitions to the controversial execution method next month.  Six volunteers certified for no less than three years apiece through Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, will be recruited to ensure the Idaho Department of Correction is ready to comply with a state law that prioritizes shooting prisoners to death over lethal injection starting July 1.  No one on the team may have faced disciplinary action over firearms, use of force, or related conduct over the prior year, according to new execution protocols the prison system released this week. 

SCOTUS: Alabama can’t execute Jeffery Lee by nitrogen; Thursday execution called off

After a week of legal volleyball, Alabama death row inmate Jeffery Lee’s execution—scheduled for Thursday evening—was called off after federal courts called the state’s nitrogen gas execution method “likely unconstitutional.” The state took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping Lee could still be put to death tonight.  In an order issued at 8:10 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that it would not lift a ban on Alabama executing Lee via nitrogen . In a short court order, the justices denied Alabama’s motion to go ahead with the execution.  Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the appeal and let the execution proceed, according to the order. 

Alabama | Judge bars nitrogen gas execution, says method is unconstitutionally cruel

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- A federal judge on Tuesday permanently blocked Alabama from executing an inmate with nitrogen gas after declaring it violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge Emily Marks issued the ruling hours after an appeals court reversed her initial finding that the method was constitutional. Marks permanently enjoined the state from executing Jeffrey Lee, 49, by nitrogen gas. He was scheduled to be executed Thursday. The decision, for now, blocks the use of the controversial new execution method that the state has championed since 2024, but the issue will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

With nitrogen gas blocked, Alabama seeks to execute inmate by lethal injection

Jeffery Lee, who successfully challenged his scheduled Thursday execution by nitrogen gas, argued that execution by firing squad would be less painful. The Alabama Attorney General’s Office Friday sought to put an Alabama death row inmate to death by lethal injection a day after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed the state’s attempt to execute him by nitrogen gas. In a filing with the Alabama Supreme Court Friday afternoon, the state sought an expedited motion to set a new execution date for Jeffery Lee, 49. The state said that with a permanent injunction in place against nitrogen gas, the method by which the state intended to execute Lee on Thursday, it could execute him by lethal injection or the electric chair.

20 Minutes to Death: Witness to the Last Execution in France

The following document is a firsthand account of the final moments of Hamida Djandoubi, a convicted murderer executed by guillotine at Marseille’s Baumettes Prison on September 10, 1977. The record—dated September 9—was written by Monique Mabelly, a judge appointed by the state to witness the proceedings. Djandoubi’s execution would ultimately be the last carried out in France before capital punishment was abolished in 1981. At the time, President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—who had publicly voiced his "deep aversion to the death penalty" prior to his election—rejected Djandoubi’s appeal for clemency. Choosing to let "justice take its course," the President allowed the execution to proceed, just as he had in two previous cases during his term:   Christian Ranucci , executed on July 28, 1976 and Jérôme Carrein , executed on June 23, 1977. Hamida Djandoubi , a Tunisian national, was sentenced to death for killing his former lover, Elisabeth Bousquet. He was execu...

New Mississippi billboard warns criminals: ‘Firing squad is legal’

DESOTO COUNTY, Miss. (WREG) — A billboard standing on Interstate 55 southbound as you cross the Tennessee state line and enter Mississippi from Memphis is sending a grim message to those coming into the state. DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton recently announced the new billboard campaign, which features the sign reading, “WELCOME TO MISSISSIPPI. WHERE THE FIRING SQUAD IS LEGAL. THINK TWICE.” It references Mississippi’s law permitting execution by firing squad under certain circumstances for inmates sentenced to death. Barton says this campaign is aimed at deterring violent crime and sends a direct message to criminals entering Mississippi.

US | Army lays groundwork for death row executions if Trump gives approval

The Army is preparing to carry out the executions of the military's four death-row inmates if ordered to do so by the president, according to an internal planning document reviewed by ABC News. If carried out, it would mark the first time the military executed convicted American inmates in more than a half-century The plan, dubbed "Operation Resolute Justice" and issued internally in February, directs Army officials to coordinate with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to transfer condemned prisoners from the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to the federal execution facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, where the Justice Department carried out a series of non-military federal executions during President Donald Trump's first term.

Texas | Tanner Horner now incarcerated at the Polunsky Unit

Convicted child killer Tanner Horner has now taken up residence in one of the most brutal death row prisons after being sentenced to die by a Texas jury last month. Horner is incarcerated at the Polunsky Unit, an infamously restrictive prison outside Houston where the state's death row inmates are housed in an all-solitary confinement wing and spend at least 22 hours a day in their 60-square-foot cells. The former FedEx deliveryman, 34, was booked at the notorious prison on May 5 within hours of being sentenced for the gruesome murder of Athena Strand, 7, whom he admitted strangling while delivering a Christmas gift to her home in November 2022.

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wanted an execution that a Trump judge deemed illegal

The Supreme Court these days is generally in the business of helping executions go forward. But on Thursday night, the court did something notable: It told Alabama no. Even then, the court wasn't unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to let the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee proceed. What prompted the rare rejection? In line with the typical shadow docket practice, the court didn't explain itself. Nor did the dissenters, who merely noted their disagreement. But a deeper look at the case helps us understand why a majority of the court was unwilling to help the state this time.