Only a week and some change left in this legislative session, read along to find out how things are panning out.
Legislative Updates
HB 1077: Non-Unanimous Jury Bill
Our public awareness campaign, pointing out the many flaws in this bill, has had an impact. A special shoutout is deserved for those incarcerated people who shared with us their views from the Inside, regarding their own fates and Jim Crow verdicts. The bill sponsor, Rep. Randall Gaines, sought to introduce amendments that would make the bill less damaging, and Rep. Royce Duplessis clearly articulated the problems with the parole process the District Attorneys have drafted for the legislature. Those amendments were voted down, and Rep. Gaines has not been able to find common ground with D.A.’s, who clearly hold a “veto power” within our legislative branch.
Today Rep. Gaines pulled HB 1077, killing the bill for this legislative session.
HB 517: Medical Advisory Committee
HB 517, by Rep. Larry Selders, was presented with no opposition in the Judiciary B Committee. The bill was reported favorably and will be voted on for final passage. HB 517 creates a Medical Advisory Committee within the DOC that will report quarterly to the Dept. of Health. Will Harrell, VOTE’s Policy Counsel, testified only to thank Rep. Selders and the DOC for working with VOTE on the bill. Harrell stated, “The version of the bill right now is scaled back significantly [from] when it was first filed, but we believe it’s still going to serve a great purpose [and] provide transparency to allow us to continue to work in collaboration with DOC to enhance medical services in our facilities.”
Louisiana needs to revisit non-unanimous jury convictions. Read on to see what we’re up against.
Legislative Session Updates
NON-UNANIMOUS JURY RETROACTIVITY
OUR CURRENTLY INCARCERATED MEMBERS REACT TO HB 1077
Legislators at the Louisiana Capitol have expressed various motivations regarding prison issues, including the current legal challenge regarding approximately 1500 people who languish in prison with non-unanimous convictions. Most of these people are currently sentenced until their death. The U.S. Supreme Court instructed Louisiana that retroactively reversing these (now universally recognized as) unconstitutional convictions is up to them, and both the legislature and courts have been called upon to act.
VOTE’s most recent email to legislators regarding HB 1077 invited them to visit people in prison and ask their views on the bill. And only yesterday, in a hearing regarding counting incarcerated people as “residents” of a district for the purpose of apportioning legislative power, several legislators expressed their close connection to the prisons. Rep. Lacombe, who represents 6000 residents confined in Angola, called them a part of the “community.” Rep. Deshotel, who represents people confined in two prisons in the Cottonport area mentioned his support for capital outlay projects (a.k.a. prison construction and repairs). Rep. Ivey explained how he hears from people in prison “all the time,” albeit via family members of the currently incarcerated. Rep. Gaines, who sponsored HB 1077, has expressed how he is trying to help the 1500 convicted through Jim Crow trials, and believes this bill, creating parole eligibility, may be the best we can do.
Despite all those declarations of community, we’ve heard no responses from lawmakers wishing to visit.
Legislators at the Louisiana Capitol have expressed various motivations regarding prison issues, including the current legal challenge regarding approximately 1500 people who languish in prison with non-unanimous convictions. Most of these people are currently sentenced until their death. The U.S. Supreme Court instructed Louisiana that retroactively reversing these (now universally recognized as) unconstitutional convictions is up to them, and both the legislature and courts have been called upon to act.
VOTE’s most recent email to legislators regarding HB 1077 invited them to visit people in prison and ask their views on the bill. And only yesterday, in a hearing regarding counting incarcerated people as “residents” of a district for the purpose of apportioning legislative power, several legislators expressed their close connection to the prisons. Rep. Lacombe, who represents 6000 residents confined in Angola, called them a part of the “community.” Rep. Deshotel, who represents people confined in two prisons in the Cottonport area mentioned his support for capital outlay projects (a.k.a. prison construction and repairs). Rep. Ivey explained how he hears from people in prison “all the time,” albeit via family members of the currently incarcerated. Rep. Gaines, who sponsored HB 1077, has expressed how he is trying to help the 1500 convicted through Jim Crow trials, and believes this bill, creating parole eligibility, may be the best we can do.
Despite all those declarations of community, we’ve heard no responses from lawmakers wishing to visit. Here is a sampling of what they would hear from people actually locked away without a key. [formatted for clarity]
Keith A.
“Now, to express the general sentiments of those incarcerated, concerning the DEATH BILL HB 1077.
Most of the 10-2’ers I’ve talked to are not only opposed to, but in utter disbelief by the sham that the legislature is attempting to enact by this bill. Here are some viewpoints:
The Special Committee on Parole amounts to a 13th juror, or basically a retrial of our cases.
The impaneling of members:
Three retired judges- what will be their political slant? (will the Governor consider or be prohibited from considering Ret. Justice B. Johnson?)
One retired District Attorney- will this selection be from one of the parishes that is against granting relief of non-unanimous juries?
One retired public defender- after finding that the IDB [Indigent Defender Board] was unconstitutionally ineffective, could a petitioner elect to hire a private attorney for adequate representation?
Section F(1)(e) stipulates that the DA will be permitted to file a written response to the petitioner’s application. Will the petitioner be allowed to submit a Brief in Support of his PCR, or traverse the state’s rebuttal?
Section 2(b) allows for any testimony of the petitioner or victim. Will this infringe upon the petitioner’s 6th Amendment right to confrontation and cross – examination?
Miscarriage of Justice is clearly established by the non-unanimous jury verdict itself.
Vote for parole. * 3/5 for non-lifers * 5/5 for lifers. Why the disparity of votes for the same finding of erroneous application of the law?
Submit entirety of records: An extra burden on petitioner. * costs (upward of $300 for transcripts) * time of obtaining documents will toll the time period for filing for parole.
Section 2 stipulates that “The provisions of this Act shall terminate either three years after the effective date of this Act or upon a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court that the holding in Ramos v. La. is retroactive. * If this board will be terminated in 3 years, by mathematical assumption, this Board will have to review; * 1500 cases in 36 months; * 500 cases a year; * 42 cases a month; * 10 cases a week; * 2 cases a day. Albeit, this will be in lieu of reviewing court documents that are on the average of 500-800 pages a case. Can these “Super-Justices”, with legal clarity; review, discuss, deliberate, and decide the fate of two cases a day, every week, every month, for three consecutive years?
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana held that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict someone—does not apply to those who were wrongly convicted before that decision.
Tuesday, May 10th, the LA Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Reddick v. Louisiana, the case to determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ramos decision should apply retroactively to people convicted by Jim Crow juries.
The surprising part about the State’s argument in favor of keeping people convicted under Jim Crow juries is how poorly it was crafted and defended. However, those of us who have been fighting the system know, even those of us who help a wrongfully convicted person be released after decades, that the State need not craft good arguments.
The State rested its case on two major points: (1) There are no watershed new rules, i.e. there is nothing groundbreaking to change in the realm of our criminal legal system. (2) The Legislature is crafting a remedy, so the Court need not do anything.
Within the State’s argument that we lack the resources to provide new trials for 1500 people, they said: “only about 50-100 people are actually innocent.” Let that sink in. They did not propose how to figure out who those 50 to 100 people are (typically, this is only done through a trial). They merely said that constitutional trials should not be required for people already convicted. Considering that someone who is wrongfully convicted can obtain up to $500,000 from the State, perhaps they see it as a cost savings move to not pay out $50 Million dollars to them?
The Court will now talk amongst themselves. We should not expect a ruling prior to the Legislative Session concluding. Read our full analysis here.
Reginald Reddick’s family and legal team address the media at the the Louisiana Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 10, 2022
The surprising part about the State’s argument in favor of keeping people convicted under Jim Crow juries is how poorly it was crafted and defended. However, those of us who have been fighting the system know, even those of us who help a wrongfully convicted person be released after decades, that the State need not craft good arguments. The judges defend the State already. So the question becomes:
Did any of the oral arguments matter?
Either way, here are some nuggets:
The State rested its case on two major points: (1) There are no watershed new rules, i.e. there is nothing groundbreaking to change in the realm of our criminal legal system. (2) The Legislature is crafting a remedy, so the Court need not do anything.
First, although a unanimous jury system may not be groundbreaking for the rest of the country, it is certainly a “watershed” here. The ballot amendment, and then the Ramos decision, resulted in hundreds of people having convictions overturned, and resetting the bar for the thousands of trials to come. The State’s argument here is extremely weak. Up until 1978, a DA only needed to convince 9 out of 12 people to convict, and then from 1978 to 2019 needed ten. Jumping all the way to 12 is massive, and only now does “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” mean anything. And as Promise of Justice Initiative (PJI) lawyer Jamila Johnson pointed out, people are by our constitution: “Innocent until proven guilty.” Thus, “prove” is intended to have real meaning.
Second, the State lawyer repeatedly brought up HB 744, a bill that Chief Justice Weimer was clearly in the know about, a “compromise” remedy which would provide a possible parole option for the roughly 1500 people languishing behind bars because of non-unanimous juries. Just last week, Louisiana District Attorneys’ Association representative Loren Lampert assured the House Judiciary Committee that they would not argue to the Court that a remedy is on the way. As we noted in that judiciary committee hearing, moving HB 744 forward creates a false hope for everyone involved—including the LASC. And while Loren Lampert sat immediately behind the State’s lawyer, he didn’t make the 744 argument. His colleague did it for him.
Jamila responded with more realistic points: how late we are in the Legislative Session, how any bill would need to go through Appropriations, through the Senate, and likely need to return to the House for final passage. And quite importantly, how these “panels” never seem to work out anyway. More on HB 744—the False Hope bill—here
A page from the official journal of the proceedings of the Constitutional convention of the state of Louisiana, held in New Orleans, Tuesday, February 8, 1898, published in New Orleans, and printed by H.J. Hearsey
Drawing up the documents to forge American democracy was an often fraught process—the many disagreements of the framers can be found in the Federalist Papers of John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, and the personal writings of people such as Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. Despite those disagreements, and the amended Bill of Rights that came soon thereafter, several key principles were without controversy; one of which is the “Separation of Powers” that creates our three branches of government who are designed to provide “checks and balances” on each other.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers
The Legislative Branch, being the representative voice of the people, would create the laws. The Executive Branch, headed by an elected Chief Executive, faithfully carries out the will of the people. The Judicial Branch makes the wise rulings, including whether the Executive oversteps their authority, or if the legislature creates unconstitutional laws.
In Louisiana, the Executive Branch is represented by a term-limited Governor, along with district attorneys and sheriffs who are not term-limited. The DAs have a legislative lobby called the Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA), and the sheriffs have a legislative lobby as well. These two groups are currently represented by Loren Lampert and Mike Renatza, respectively. These lobbying groups are the most powerful political forces in Louisiana. They write laws and amendments to other proposed laws. Nothing is passed over their objections.
The term-limited legislators consistently explain that they will follow the lead of their local district attorney and local sheriff, rather than follow the lead of their constituents. When a bill was proposed to term-limit sheriffs, the only testimony against the proposal were sheriffs themselves, not voters. The defense of no-limits was that voters could simply choose to unelect a 20-year incumbent, as though mounting a victorious campaign is so simple, particularly against a figure universally accepted as the most powerful political official in a parish, with the power to raise their own monies and who are not accountable to any oversight.
The U.S. Supreme Court was needed to declare Louisiana’s non-unanimous juries unconstitutional. After well over a century of district attorneys using this Jim Crow tool, which was explicitly created to ensure White Supremacy (a fact spelled out in the all-white Constitutional Convention of 1898, and universally accepted today), the LDAA fought the demise of 10-2 verdicts every step of the way. They fight it still. They, along with the Attorney General, will argue to the Louisiana Supreme Court that this unconstitutional tool (used only by two overtly discriminating states) should keep the fruits of their unjust labor. They will argue that every person still alive who was victimized by this tool should stay convicted. Case closed.
Norris Henderson speaks to press at the LA Legislature, May 2021
Legislative Session Updates
NON-UNANIMOUS JURY
The struggle continues for those of us fighting to end the damage caused by unconstitutional Jim Crow verdicts. Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will hear HB 744, a flawed bill that would create a parole possibility for some of the people imprisoned under non-unanimous verdicts. Unlike the Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) issue, where the system had to fix unconstitutional sentences, we are now tasked with fixing unconstitutional convictions. Parole eligibility leaves the conviction intact, and history shows us that this “fix” would most likely be no more than a false hope. When a global pandemic swept through packed dormitories and people were suffering and dying, the System finally responded to public pressure by creating a compassionate release process. Even after narrowing the eligibility down to less than 10% of the incarcerated people, with an entire structure planned out on how to review those convicted of non-violent offenses and already near the end of their sentences: they released 13 people.
