I voted for Louisiana's 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts

There is no greater education than one that is self-driven.
Neil deGrasse Tyson

Unanimous-Majority Jury Verdicts: Louisiana’s Unique Triumph Over English Colonialism

We hope to alert fellow citizens to the harm the absolute, 12:0, unanimous jury rule inflicts on the 48 states that still use that obsolete English tradition. England reformed to 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts in 1967, citing the need to reduce organized crime’s influence on jurors. The Louisiana Legislature has time to veto Act 493.[i] If not, Louisiana voters may preserve its 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.

U.S. history from unanimous to impartial

The British-colonial traditions so oppressed the 13 eastern seaboard colonies that some colonists became statesmen and declared war to establish independence. Statesmen won the war but were too factional to survive as a Confederation, so they formed a Union, perhaps to end traditional English repression.

The Union, on drafting Amendment VI for the 1791 Bill of rights, chose to require states to provide impartial juries rather than constitutionalize the English passion for absolute unanimity or 12:0 verdicts.

Louisiana was a French colony sold to the U.S. in 1803. Politicians in Louisiana opposed British tradition. They applied for Union statehood in 1812 and used the 12:0 rule from then through Reconstruction's 1877 end, when they were freed from federal troops. Soon afterwards, Louisiana provided for impartial juries by enacting, in 1880, the 9:3 unanimous-majority rule.

With a qualified jury of fellow citizens, there’s always a mixture of civil opinion: habitually impartial, persuadable, and insecure/uninformed. The 9:3 rule empowers the impartial majority, which benefits three parties: the victim, the accused, and We the People of the United States. The purpose of trials is to discourage criminal behavior. A fair trial is as important to the accused as to the victim and to We the People of the United States.

Louisiana’s impartial unanimous-majority verdict is U.S. constitutional

Settled, constitutional law confirms Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the 9:3 rule in 1970 and the US Supreme Court in 1972; Johnson v Louisiana.[ii]

I think the Louisiana Legislature committed a crime when it enacted popular vote to impose on Louisiana the failure of 48 U.S. states to reform from obsolete English tradition. England and most former British colonies have reformed to 11:1, 10:2 and 9:3 juries.[iii] Other states preserve colonialism by not providing impartial juries, as required by U.S. Amendment VI. Louisiana voters may protect personal safety and security by voting to keep the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict.

A more egregious British tradition: racism

Obsolete British imperialism egregiously lacks integrity by holding that colonial subjects, especially blacks, are inferior inhabitants who are subject to Blackstone juries.[iv] Recovery lives as black racism; however, human, civic integrity is possible for all inhabitants. The 1787 U.S. Constitution has the power to forge civil integrity. The purpose and goals for civic integrity are stated and offered in the U.S. Constitution’s preamble. Citizens and resident aliens may elect both civic and civil equality by adopting the agreement that is stated in the preamble. By that choice, inhabitants join We the People of the United States rather than refer to the mysterious “we, the people” to maintain dissidence and conflict. Moreover, We the People of the United States are empowered to establish the agreement under which disciplined citizens equally constrain criminals.  Legislators and other officials may choose to be members of We the People of the United States, and civic voters may monitor their performance.

The 2018 Louisiana Legislature has time to correct a crime against the people of Louisiana: time to veto 2018 Act 493. Act 493 imposes an unconstitutional referendum to end impartial-majority verdicts. Act 493 is an affront to Louisiana citizens and their safety and security. Act 493 is especially egregious to black fellow citizens.

We the People of the United States seeks statutory justice

            The U.S. judicial system strives for impartiality for the temporal population; in other words, in present times and at the leading edge of discovered injustice rather than by traditional opinion or past practices. How often does 100% impartiality occur in juries?

U.S. juries with 12:0 verdicts reportedly get it wrong in 13% of cases. [v] Taking that percentage into account, impartiality may be expected with provision of 10:2 majority verdicts but not 11:1 or 12:0. In other words, the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict offsets the 13% nominal error. But what of concern (like England’s) about organized crime’s influence?

With 1, 2, or 3 criminal/bigoted jurors the unanimous majority needs to be 9:3, 8:4, or 7:5, respectively.

If majority-unanimity by twelve were deemed essential, impartiality would be expected with 12:2 majority verdicts or to accommodate 1 criminal juror, 12:3. Related judicial expenses would increase 17% or 25%, respectively. U.S. statistics seem to confirm the impartiality of 1880 Louisiana’s 9:3 rule. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry tacitly made that point by saying that 10:2 verdicts are efficient. ⁵

Black fellow citizens disproportionally hurt by 12:0 verdict

            Black victims, because of a culture of black on black offenses, suffer disproportionally the 13% error-effect of unanimous verdict requirements. Black fellow citizens who collaborate for civic justice would be disproportionally hurt by approval of Act 493, contrary to The Advocate’s “Our Views” on August 12, 2018.[vi]

Consider FBI data on 12,253 murders in 2013.[vii] Of 5500 reports involving blacks and whites, 3009 victims were white, with 2509 white offenders and 409 black offenders; 2491 victims were black, with 2245 black offenders and 189 white offenders.

Offenses tend to occur within the same race: 90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender and 83.4% of white victims suffered a white offender. The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black. Blacks commit black on black offense 632% more frequently than white on white offense. (That’s 90.1/83.4/12.6*73.7*100% = 632%.) Dissidents may think it alright to let black fellow citizens disproportionally suffer, and some dissidents may benefit; judges and lawyers who process hung juries come to mind.[viii]^,[ix] But a civic people want to reduce the harm by discovering why some blacks are disproportionally willing to harm each other.

Reported offender totals are 2654 black 2698 whites. Thus, the absolute harm of 13% verdict failures is about even 345 and 350 blacks and whites, respectively. I could say it would not impact me but do not believe that: I am a fellow citizen who is hurt by failures in civic integrity.

Constitutional breaches

            The legislators who voted for Act 493 had individual reasons to rebuke U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement of an impartial jury. Helping citizens, black or white, cannot be among the reasons. Also, approving legislators took for granted their attempt to foist on the people the responsibility for rebuking Louisiana’s historic, well received, impartiality-provision for U.S. Amendment VI.

By attempting to impose popular vote to defeat a U.S. constitutional rule for justice, the approving legislators breached Amendment XIV.1. When justice has been established, the act that legislates injustice is unconstitutional.

The 2018 Louisiana Legislature has wronged the people of the Great State of Louisiana by proposing a change from civil integrity to injustice. Once any legislator admits to the legislature’s breach of trust, he or she may call on responsible legislators to reverse the action the erroneous legislators have taken. I hope Gov. John Bel Edwards will call a special session for the Legislature to consider vetoing Act 493. If not, they will miss opportunity for civic morality if not integrity. The intended rewards to the perpetrators remain obfuscated.

---

[i] Online at https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB365/id/1803006.

[ii] Online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/.

[iii] Online at https://www.revolvy.com/page/Hung-jury.

[iv] Online at https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2001-1-page-525.htm.

[v] Online at https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html.

[vi] Online at https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_348a829a-9b44-11e8-b16a-3b8d60001669.html.

[vii] Online at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls.

[viii] Online at http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf.

[ix] Online at http://files.lsba.org/documents/Legislation/LSBAHODPoliciesUPDATEDThruJanuary2017.pdf, entry at 6/9/2016.