There are many wonderful things that make us proud in Louisiana —our “culture,” our food, our festivals, our sports teams and the spirit of resiliency set Louisiana apart in many ways.  People who live in Louisiana by and large love this place. It is our home.  Our history is rich and compelling.

But lurking in the background of our history is a self-created tumor that festers:  The non-unanimous jury (NUJ) verdicts that sent many Louisianans to prison for life without a unanimous verdict by a jury of their peers is an element on our past that effects our culture to this day.  There is a shadow of distrust that covers the state as a result of the deeds of our past—-and the NUJ is one of those deeds.

Some background for those unfamiliar: Prior to 2018, Louisiana had a non-unanimous jury paradigm for some violent crimes.   In short, people could be sent away for life for some felonies with a 10-2 (and 9-3 prior to 1974) verdict.      Roughly 1,000 people who were convicted under this structure remain in state custody to this day.   The people in the state voted in 2018 to change this to a unanimous jury—like every other state in the nation.

THANK GOD!

Since 2018, all felony verdicts have required a 12-0 jury. But there are over a thousand people who were convicted under the old system.

The question is, what do we do about these people?

Should we do anything?

Can we do anything?

These people were all convicted under the valid (but certainly antiquated) laws of the day and were convicted within the force of law.   But something is not quite right.

Before I offer up one more word, let me say this clearly:  I am NOT advocating for new trials for those convicted in the NUJ framework.  Federal and state courts have ruled on this issue and 1,000 new trials simply will not take place   Such an endeavor would hemorrhage the judicial system and has been taken off the table via a number of complete court cases.

But the question I am posing is:   Can or should something be done about those cases and their results?   Simply with the intent of clearing our conscience as a state.

I am not offering up the idea that any or all of these people were sent to prison errantly.   I am, however, recommending we find a way to review the cases to see if any mistakes were made.

Convicting someone of a capital crime is difficult and should be difficult.  A 12-0 jury verdict is a pretty resolute statement.   But, if you speak to a judge, DA or sheriff, they’ll most likely tell you that some cases might have slipped through the cracks.

I know I’ve had those discussions and have heard those things.   Some have said “it happened.” Most all convicted under those paradigms have had all appeals exhausted.  Most are ‘settled’ in the eyes of the law.    But is that good enough for us a state?

I do not believe it is.

Several initiatives were offered up in recent years in the House, but we couldn’t get any traction.   The most vocal voices on this argument have been advocates for those who believe all 1,000 people deserve a new a trial.   Whether they do or do not is beside the point.  That just can’t happen.    The complexities of re-trying a 40 year old murder or other violent case are mind numbing.   Many or most witnesses would be passed away; dragging a victim’s family through such an event could be cruel and unusual; evidence may or may not be available.   The mechanics of such a pathway are unworkable.

The other side often argues that “justice has been served” and “they’ve had their day in court.”

But what if the one or two holdouts in a NUJ were right?   What if?   What about that man or woman who now lives behind bars in Angola or at St. Gabriel? What are our obligations as government and as the people who create the government—the citizenry?   Do we just ignore these possibilities?

I am told by attorneys that non-unanimous juries were completed in a number of ways.  The juries were often instructed that once they got to 10 votes, they were to stop counting and to complete their processes.   Just because there was a 10 vote majority didn’t mean there were two dissenters all the time.   But there had to be times when there were dissenters. What about those two dissenters? What if it was one dissenter?  Some might have dissented because they didn’t like government. Some may have disliked the DA or judge.   Some might have NOT dissented but just didn’t vote because the count got to 10. But what about the ones who had genuine questions? Could those two dissenting votes EVER been right or right enough to prevent a conviction?

I’m told that the 10-2 paradigm resulted in probably a 99.5 correct conviction rate.  That’s great unless it’s your uncle, your father or your aunt who is in the one half of one percent.

I’ve been told a number of times to leave this alone.  I’ve been told that the convicted have had their shot at justice.

No.  I’m not leaving it alone.  Not as long as I believe we have a way to try and find that ½ of one percent.    If it’s one person, he or she is worth trying to find.   If we find no one, then our conscience is clear that we tried.

I had a proposal last year in the legislature but could not find any traction on the topic—not from the left and not from the right.   One group wants 1000 new trials and another group wants to leave it alone.    I thought my proposal would  give Louisiana a chance  to clear its conscience on this issue.   The actions prompted by the proposal would be done in the light of day, so all can see, and so we can try to do our best to DO good government.

I believe a component of justice is doing so from a position of righteousness and honor.   If our government is righteous and operates in honor—then we can possibly come to a new place and a new day in Louisiana.   A clear conscience is invaluable and would be a statement to our citizens we will do the right thing.

I’m all ears.   I want to try and make sure Louisiana can have a clear conscience.  I hope someone will join me.