HISTORY OF NON-UNANIMOUS JURY CONVICTIONS 😞

BOTH  Louisiana and Oregon beforehand DID REQUIRE unanimous jury verdicts to convict people accused of crimes.  Hung jury verdicts were never allowed in the beginning.  THESE 2 STATES ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ACTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE 6TH AMMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

If a person was convicted in 2018 or earlier with a HUNG JURY (non-unanimous jury) - oops.....TOO BAD the law wasn't CORRECTED before then.  PEOPLE ARE SERVING LIFE SENTENCES WITH EXTREMELY SHADY CONVICTIONS IN OUR STATE.  

Oregon has decided to make these cases retroactive in their state......we in LOUISIANA are still keeping these people in prison with NO HELP and NO JUSTICE!!! 

In Louisiana, when 2 black jurors were required to be on the jury, Louisiana legislated new law to convict people with a non-unanimous jury vote (A HUNG JURY) so the black votes would not count.  Oregon did a similar thing because of Jewish jurors.  The change was made to oppress a particular race/group of people.

This made it much easier for the Louisiana DA's to get convictions - AND PUT INNOCENT PEOPLE BEHIND BARS. 

~ ~ ~ Whether intentionally, unintentionally, or indifferently ~ ~INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE HAD BETTER PROTECTION FROM THE LAW. 

In Oregon..."Those with newly vacated convictions are not eligible for immediate release but will be transferred from the state Department of Corrections to county jails while local prosecutors decide how to revisit each case." They will either retry them, offer a plea deal, or dismiss the case.

WHY CAN'T LOUISIANA DO THE SAME?

 If the lower court did not convict people properly...THEN THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO CORRECT IT!!!! Is this too much to ask Louisiana to do? Not at all.....on average, it is roughly 19 cases per parish..... GETTING JUSTICE RIGHT IS WORTH IT!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU NOT THINK THAT OUT OF 1200 CASES, SOME OF THEM GOT IT WRONG??? A right to a new trial does NOT let all of these people out of jail.....it just makes our government be responsible for these people's lives.....as we should be.

PLEASE HOLD OUR LEADERS  ACCOUNTABLE!!!!! - justice is more than just being "tough on crime."   

TOUGH ON CRIME IS FINE - BUT DON'T CREATE MORE HATE WITH INJUSTICE....Defendants who didn't have good representation were at the mercy of our District Attorneys, who have endless access to resources to convict someone. Getting convictions is not the goal....justice prevailing is the goal.
Citizens of Louisiana - imagine for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, and some over 50 years!....being in prison....treated like you are most definitely less than human (even the white folks know what it is like to be a SLAVE in prison - people are completely dehumanized) ....if you are sick...maybe you will get help.....maybe you won't.....you are told what to do, when to do it, and how it must be done for EVERYTHING....you are subject to all kinds of TENSE situations throughout each day - you always have to watch your back - NO BREAK FROM THE CONSTANT GRIND OF HEAVINESS OVER YOU. If we as citizens are going to subject others to this kind of life*- WE NEED TO GET IT RIGHT - NOT CONVICTING INNOCENT PEOPLE - OR OVER CONVICTING PEOPLE.
This is not inflated information.....OUR STATE LITERALLY INCARCERATES ALMOST TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE - and guess what???? It doesn't reduce crime.....we have been tough on crime for DECADES.....and it doesn't change anything - WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TRUST OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AGAIN - and show that we care about people wrongfully convicted in LOUISIANA.....if Oregon can get it right, SO CAN WE.

*the life many prisoners endure is beyond just having their freedom taken away....our state has prison problems.....a topic to also consider. We can barely afford to run our prisons.

Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said...“It has been a long and winding road to get here.  I am very grateful to both of our state appellate courts for expediting this important issue of retroactivity of the Ramos ruling.  It was a critical piece of this complex process of undoing a rule that should never have been enacted in the first place—now nearly 90 years ago.  I stand committed to eradicating inequities and ensuring fairness and impartiality in the delivery of justice in our state.” 

In Oregon..."Those with newly vacated convictions are not eligible for immediate release but will be transferred from the state Department of Corrections to county jails while local prosecutors decide how to revisit each case." They will either retry them, offer a plea deal, or dismiss the case.WHY HASN'T LOUISIANA DONE ANYTHING TO CORRECT THIS??? Because our leaders don't care enough about innocent people being convicted😞💔
 

US Supreme Court ruled in Apodaca v Oregon (1972)

on the 6th Amendment and the 14th Amendment
 

Mr. Justice POWELL concluded that:

1. Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity (MEANING ALL JURORS AGREE - NO HUNG JURY CONVICTION) in a federal jury trial, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate *405 all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity. Oregon's ‘ten of twelve’ rule is not violative of due process. Pp. 1637—1641.

Mr. Justice STEWART, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, the Court squarely held that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury in a federal criminal case is made wholly applicable to state criminal trials by the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless Duncan is to be overruled, therefore, the only relevant question here is whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of trial by jury embraces a guarantee that the verdict of the jury must be unanimous (MEANING ALL JURORS AGREE - NO HUNG JURY CONVICTION). The answer to that question is clearly ‘yes,’ as my Brother POWELL has cogently demonstrated in that part of his concurring opinion that reviews almost a century of Sixth Amendment adjudication.*

US Supreme Court ruled in Ramos vs Louisiana (2020) that the 6th Amendment has always required unanimous jury convictions (no one was EVER supposed to be convicted by a hung jury). The Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch, held that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, as incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict (MEANING ALL JURORS AGREE - NO HUNG JURY CONVICTION) to convict a defendant of a serious offense, abrogating Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184, and Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152.Reversed.

BROKEN JUSTICE SYSTEM  = BROKEN FAMILIES = DISTRUST IN POLICE = MORE CRIME = NO RESPECT FOR LAW AND ORDER

• [NOTE TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA........IN 1972, Apodaca vs Oregon, Mr. Justice POWELL concluded that:
• 1. Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity (MEANING ALL JURORS AGREE - NO HUNG JURY CONVICTION)
• - ALL JURORS AGREEING ON A VERDICT (to prevent wrongful convictions) - THE EDWARDS VS VANNOY DECISION KEEPS INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED - even though our Justices clearly state here and in EVERY other landmark case that THE 6TH AMENDMENT HAS ALWAYS - WITH PRECEDENT (long history) - REQUIRED UNANIMITY - all jurors are supposed to be in agreement to convict people of serious crimes - TO TAKE THEIR LIFE AWAY - and it has ALWAYS been required in our US CONSTITUTION..... JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED
• - THE US JUSTICES LEFT THIS PROBLEM IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE COURTS - OUR LEADERS HAVE NOT CORRECTED THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!!! - OREGON'S ATTORNEY GENERAL DID, Oregon now allows new trials and determines plea deals for their people convicted wrongly.

 - Apodaca vs Oregon (1972) was decided wrongly CONCERNING PRECEDENT IN DUNCAN V LOUISIANA (1968) FOR 14 AMENDMENT APPLICATION OF THE 6TH Amendment to the states - INCLUDED UNANIMITY

.....SO IF IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN RAMOS THAT THIS WAS POORLY DECIDED IN 1972 - why are people still not allowed a fair trial convicted with hung juries before 2019????

because our judicial system prefers cases to remain final.....BUT IF BY PRECEDENT IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE FINAL.....IS IT REALLY FINAL???  

If you thoroughly read the decision in Duncan v Louisiana (1968) - you will understand the unanimity of jury votes being in agreement as a fundamental pillar our Constitutional framers inacted as a right of the accused of a serious crime (meaning punishable by more than 6 months and over a $500 fine).  Our founding fathers and  American colonists understood this fundamental right to make sure the balance of power between the common man and the governmental authorities stayed in check.  A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY MEANT THEN AND NOW THAT ALL JURORS NEEDED TO AGREE TO CONVICT SOMEONE OF A SERIOUS CRIME.  UNANIMITY - This is the precedent - as clearly stated by Justice Powell in Apodaca, and clearly understood in Duncan as that 6th amendment right is and always was applicable to the states , this is NOT A NEW RULE.....IT DOES NOT NEED THE TEAGUE TEST.....it just was not being followed...PERIOD.  The colonists followed it, Duncan followed it, Apodaca DID NOT - Ramos (2020) corrected a long overdue wrong......SO EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN CONVICTED BY A UNANIMOUS JURY......ALWAYS.

YOU CANNOT DENY PEOPLE A FAIR  AND EQUITABLE TRIAL BECAUSE OF A VERY NARROWLY DECIDED CASE IN 1972 THAT HAD TACTICAL FLAWS CLEARLY STATED IN THE WELL WRITTEN DISSENT.  As Justice Kavanaugh directly addressed in the Ramos decision (2020).

In 2007, a Louisiana jury found petitioner Thedrick Edwards guilty of armed robbery, rape, and kidnapping. At the time, Louisiana law permitted non-unanimous jury verdicts if at least 10 of the 12 jurors found the defendant guilty. In Edwards's case, 11 of 12 jurors returned a guilty verdict as to some crimes, and 10 of 12 jurors returned a guilty verdict as to others. After Edwards's conviction became final on direct review, Edwards filed a federal habeas corpus petition, arguing that the non-unanimous jury verdict violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury. The District Court rejected Edwards's claim as foreclosed by Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184, and the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. While Edwards's petition for a writ of certiorari was pending, the Court repudiated Apodaca and held that a state jury must be unanimous to convict a criminal defendant of a serious offense. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583. Edwards now argues that the Ramos jury-unanimity rule applies retroactively on federal collateral review.Held: The Ramos jury-unanimity rule does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. Pp. 1553 – 1562.(a) A new rule of criminal procedure applies to cases on direct review, even if the defendant's trial has already concluded. But the Court has stated that new rules of criminal procedure ordinarily do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The Court has stated that a new procedural rule will apply retroactively on federal collateral review only if the new rule constitutes a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (plurality opinion). When the Teague Court first articulated that “watershed” exception, however, the Court stated that it was “unlikely” that such watershed “components of basic due process have yet to emerge.” Id., at 313, 109 S.Ct. 1060. And in the 32 years since Teague, the Court has never found that any new procedural rule actually satisfies the purported exception. Pp. 1553 – 1557.(b) To determine whether Ramos applies retroactively on federal collateral review, the Court must first ask whether Ramos announced a new rule of criminal procedure and, if so, whether that rule falls within an exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The Court concludes that Ramos announced a new rule and that the jury-unanimity rule announced by Ramos does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. Pp. 1555 – 1559.(1) The Ramos jury-unanimity rule is new because it was not “dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final,”
****ACTUALLY -THE 6TH AMENDMENT IS NOT NEW****Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

(inserted commentary)

Teague, 489 U.S. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060, or “apparent to all reasonable jurists” at that time, Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 528, 117 S.Ct. 1517, 137 L.Ed.2d 771. On the contrary, before Ramos, many courts interpreted Apodaca to allow for non-unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials. And the Ramos Court expressly repudiated Apodaca. Pp. 1555 – 1557.
(2) The new rule announced in Ramos does not qualify as a “watershed” procedural rule that applies retroactively on federal collateral review. In an attempt to distinguish Ramos from the long line of cases where the Court has declined to retroactively apply new procedural rules, Edwards emphasizes three aspects of Ramos: (i) the significance of the jury-unanimity right; (ii) Ramos’s reliance on the original meaning of the Constitution; and (iii) the effect of Ramos in preventing racial discrimination in the jury process. But the Court has refused to retroactively apply other momentous cases with similar attributes. In DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308, the Court declined to retroactively apply Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, even though Duncan established the jury right itself. In Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1, the Court declined to retroactively apply Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, even though Crawford relied on the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment to restrict the use of hearsay evidence against criminal defendants. And in Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (per curiam), the Court declined to retroactively apply Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, even though Batson held that state prosecutors may not discriminate on the basis of race when exercising individual peremptory challenges. There is no good rationale for treating Ramos differently from Duncan, Crawford, and Batson. Pp. 1556 – 1559.(3) Given the Court's numerous precedents holding that landmark and historic decisions announcing new rules of criminal procedure do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review, the Court acknowledges that the watershed exception is moribund and that no new rules of criminal procedure can satisfy the purported exception for watershed rules. Continuing to articulate a theoretical exception that never actually applies in practice offers false hope to defendants, distorts the law, misleads judges, and wastes the resources of defense counsel, prosecutors, and courts. Moreover, no one can reasonably rely on an exception that is non-existent in practice, so no reliance interests can be affected by forthrightly acknowledging reality. The watershed exception must “be regarded as retaining no vitality.” Herrera v. Wyoming, 587 U. S. ––––, ––––, 139 S.Ct. 1686, 1697, 203 L.Ed.2d 846 (internal quotation marks omitted). Pp. 1559 – 1560.Affirmed.
*VERY SAD THAT LOUISIANA HAS NOT STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE TO REMEDY THIS ISSUE.....PEOPLE ARE STUCK WITH THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONVICTIONS 😞💔

CONCLUSION

While we recognize the vitality and importance of the Sixth Amendment right at stake, the nature of the right is not the only issue before us. For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Ramos that requires unanimity in jury verdicts is not retroactive on state collateral review in Louisiana. We decline to act as a super-legislature by issuing a broader retroactivity approach than that approved by the voters of Louisiana, who amended the Constitution with prospective effect only. We expressly note that the Legislature may determine that a broader subset of individuals are eligible for post-conviction relief. Likewise, the Governor has the power in individual cases to grant clemency under our state Constitution.12

Background: Defendant sought post-conviction relief from conviction for second-degree murder, which conviction was based on ten out of the 12 jurors finding defendant guilty and which became final prior to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390, which determined that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense and that such requirement applies equally to state and federal criminal trials. The 25th Judicial District Court, Plaquemines Parish, No. 93-03922, Michael D. Clement, J., granted relief. State filed a writ application. The Court of Appeal declined to review the decision. State filed a writ application.Holding: The Supreme Court, Crichton, J., held that jury-unanimity rule from Ramos does not apply retroactively in Louisiana on collateral review; abrogating 📷State v. Waldron, 334 So.3d 844.Reversed.Weimer, C.J., additionally concurred and assigned reasons.Genovese, J., concurred in part, dissented in part, and assigned reasons.McCallum, J., additionally concurred and assigned reasons.Griffin, J., dissented and assigned reasons.
We (THE COURT) granted the writ application in this case to resolve a circuit split 1 as to whether the new rule announced by the Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), applies retroactively to cases on state collateral review. Applying the framework of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), but using the authority expressly reserved to the states by the Supreme Court to determine which new rules of criminal procedure will be applied retroactively on state collateral review, we find that the Ramos jury unanimity rule does not apply retroactively in Louisiana.In making this decision, we are mindful of the strong reliance interests at stake and the high administrative burden that many retrials of final convictions would impose on our system of justice. We further note that in voting to amend the state Constitution to require unanimity in jury verdicts, the citizens of this state chose to do so with prospective effect only. Acts 2018, No. 722, § 1, approved Nov. 6, 2018, eff. Dec. 12, 2018. This solemn decision of the people should not be disturbed by the judiciary, whose role as a co-equal branch of government is to interpret the laws, not to announce policy more rightfully reserved to the legislature. La. Const. art. II, §§ 1-2.PROCEDURAL HISTORY By a vote of ten to two, a jury convicted Reginald Reddick (“respondent”) of second-degree murder for the killing of Al Moliere in 1993.2 He was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole. His conviction became final in 1998. State v. Reddick, 97-1155 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/11/98), 707 So. 2d 521, writ denied, 98-0664 (La. 9/18/98), 724 So. 2d 755. At the time of respondent's trial, the Louisiana Constitution required only ten out of 12 jurors to concur to render a verdict. La. Const. art. I, § 17 (1974). This rule had been upheld as constitutional in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) and Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972), and was the law in Louisiana until the Constitution was amended in 2018 to require unanimous verdicts in prospective cases, i.e., those in which the offense was committed on or after January 1, 2019. Acts 2018, No. 722, § 1, approved Nov. 6, 2018, eff. Dec. 12, 2018.In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court overturned Apodaca and held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial,3 as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense and this requirement applies equally to state and federal criminal trials. 140 S. Ct. at 1395-96. This Court thereafter applied Ramos to cases on direct review, pursuant to Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). See, e.g., State v. Cole, 19-1733 (La. 10/6/20), 302 So. 3d 524 (“[Cole's] convictions were not final when Ramos was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies to any non-unanimous verdicts in these proceedings.”) (citation omitted).Because his conviction and sentence were final 4 when the Supreme Court decided Ramos, respondent filed an application for post-conviction relief on March 30, 2021, requesting retroactive application of the Ramos rule to his conviction. While respondent's application was pending before the district court, in Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 209 L.Ed.2d 651 (2021), the Supreme Court declined to apply the new rule announced in Ramos retroactively to final convictions on federal habeas review. Nevertheless, the district court held Ramos applied retroactively and granted relief. The appellate court declined to review the decision. State v. Reddick, 21-0589 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/18/21) (unpub'd). We granted the state's writ application. State v. Reddick, 21-1893 (La. 2/15/22), 332 So. 3d 1173.LEGAL BACKGROUND This case was preceded by decades of development of two separate strains of constitutional jurisprudence: the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the retroactive application of new criminal rules. In Ramos and Edwards, these two strains came together and ultimately led to respondent's application.1. Retroactivity of New Criminal Rules Retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned “not with the question whether a constitutional violation occurred, but with the availability or nonavailability of remedies.” Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 290-91, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008). In other words, a determination of retroactivity is not a determination of whether a “violation occurred.” In Ramos, the Supreme Court announced that all nonunanimous guilty verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. The question in a retroactivity analysis is whether that violation will be remedied in cases where the conviction was final when the case announcing the newly-recognized right was decided.In Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), the Supreme Court set forth a new framework for retroactivity analysis in cases on federal habeas review and reflected that Court's concerns for federalism, comity, and finality. See also Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 699, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (discussing the “prudential concerns” of “equity and federalism” articulated in Teague). The inquiry announced in Teague is multi-step and begins by distinguishing between old and new rules.5 With respect to new constitutional criminal rules in the federal habeas context, the Teague Court explained: “Unless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” Teague, 489 U.S. at 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060. The Supreme Court then articulated two exceptions to this prohibition: (i) substantive rules that “prohibit[ ] a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense,” and (ii) “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 494-95, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (citation omitted) (explaining Teague analysis). Relevant to this case is Teague’s second exception, which the Court later explained is “extremely narrow” and applies only when, among other factors, the new rule alters “our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 417, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)

• [NOTE TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA........IN 1972, Apodaca vs Oregon, Mr. Justice POWELL concluded that:
• 1. Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity (MEANING ALL JURORS AGREE - NO HUNG JURY CONVICTION)
• ALL JURORS AGREEING ON A VERDICT (to prevent wrongful convictions) is NOT a new rule IT IS PRECEDENT -  the test of Teague vs Lane IS UNFIT FOR THIS  - THE EDWARDS VS VANNOY DECISION KEEPS INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED - even though our Justices clearly state here and in EVERY other landmark case that THE 6TH AMENDMENT HAS ALWAYS - WITH PRECEDENT (long history) - REQUIRED UNANIMITY - all jurors are supposed to be in agreement to convict people of serious crimes - TO TAKE THEIR LIFE AWAY - and it has ALWAYS been required in our US CONSTITUTION.... JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED
• - THE US JUSTICES LEFT THIS PROBLEM IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE COURTS - OREGON'S ATTORNEY GENERAL DID CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE, Oregon now allows new trials and determines plea deals for their people convicted wrongly - WHY WON'T OUR LEADERS???
• 
  

BROKEN JUSTICE SYSTEM  = BROKEN FAMILIES = DISTRUST IN POLICE = MORE CRIME = NO RESPECT FOR LAW AND ORDER

REFERENCE FROM:STATE v. REDDICK (2022) | FindLaw
[ - footnote added for clarity - OUR LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AGREE THAT THE LAW WAS CHANGED BIASEDLY BACK IN THE PAST JIM CROW ERA ...... IT WAS RACIALLY MOTIVATED......AS STATED RIGHT HERE IN THE DECISION!!! - yes it has affected both white and black and other people unjustly. AND IT IS JUST AND FAIR AND COMMON SENSE THAT IF THIS LAW WAS CREATED TO OPPRESS PEOPLE...any people....IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED. Fixing it in 2019 and NOT making it retroactive IS UNJUST TO THOSE CONVICTED BY IT IN THE PAST - which is why it was deemed unconstitutional.....LOUISIANA - DO WE WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN PRISON?????]
"Jury service preserves the democratic element of the law, as it guards the rights of the parties and ensures continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people. It affords ordinary citizens a valuable opportunity to participate in a process of government, an experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law. Indeed, with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
[...SO GIVE THEM A NEW TRIAL AND LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!!!]
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 407, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (internal quotations and citations removed). The existence of a nonunanimous verdict does not mean the verdict was motivated by discrimination, and discriminatory intent should not be presumptively assigned to jurors simply because a racially motivated provision was enacted in 1898.
[....THIS ENACTMENT TO REDUCE THE JURY VOTE TO GET A CONVICTION DID OPPRESS JUSTICE FOR BLACK PEOPLE - and it affected other people as well. AND RETROACTIVITY OPENS THE COURTHOUSE.....NOT THE JAILHOUSE....they deserve at the very least a new trial...ANY REASONABLE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN FAIRNESS CAN UNDERSTAND THIS ]

WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER -  OR YOU  -WHOSE JURORS SAW A FLAW IN YOUR TRIAL AND DIDN'T VOTE TO CONVICT BECAUSE THERE WAS A REASONABLE DOUBT???

IS IT BETTER JUST TO KEEP PEOPLE CONVICTED POSSIBLY BEING INNOCENT - OR IS IT BETTER TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL???

A BURDEN ON THE JUDICIAL TO REVISIT THESE CASES IS NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN......IT IS AN UNDUE BURDEN TO LEAVE INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED.  THE HEAVIER BURDEN IS ON THOSE SUFFERING UNJUSTLY AND THEIR FAMILIES.  Our country was founded on people escaping an overbearing government - to protect individual rights.

And if you believe that the appeal process, the clemency process, and all post conviction processes are able to remedy this problem - YOU ARE MISTAKEN.  So few attorneys are even familiar with post conviction procedure and process that often vital issues are not raised or done properly causing an appeal to be dismissed.  The majority of appeals are dismissed by our Louisiana Supreme Court with no reason why it is being dismissed.  They just put the writ "DISMISSED" on the court's response - no explanation why. After someone is put in jail and cannot afford an attorney, most of the state appointed attorneys don't even talk to them and file things on their behalf - never even having a thorough conversation about their case.  I know someone whose first appeal was never completed, though the attorney was paid.  That attorney was disbarred.  A state attorney was appointed to finish the appeal - she filed it and finished it and never once spoke to the client.  He just got a notice in the mail in the prison that he had been denied by First Circuit - never got to see what was being filed on his behalf or able to decide what should be in the appeal.  He didn't even know it had been filed!!!!! VOICE SILENCED.   And many other  procedural problems occurred up through the chain of the appeal process.  OUR SYSTEM IS VERY BROKEN 

{from Thedrick Edwards case}

We {LOUISIANA} must, and do, repudiate the avowed racist purpose of the 1898 Constitutional Convention, and those provisions adopted that were written to achieve a discriminatory purpose, as abhorrent. However, the demand to repair this past wrong by indiscriminately opening the jailhouse doors and conducting retrials of these defendants regardless of the evidence of guilt is not a solution. Society must continue to work together to end unfounded bias and prejudice moving forward, and be realistic and practical about how to rectify that which occurred in the past."

OPENING THE COURTHOUSE IS NOT OPENING THE JAILHOUSE - please be honest and fair to the people of Louisiana.

GIVE THEM A NEW TRIAL AND LET THE PEOPLE OF THE JURY DECIDE!!!

OR LET THE CITIZENS VOTE ON THE RETROACTITY ISSUE!!!!!

LOUISIANA CITIZENS - OUR STATE NEEDS US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!!   

WE CAN DO BETTER😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

HOLD our LEADERS  ACCOUNTABLE!!!!💔⚖️