Last week, the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) reinstated Louisiana’s racist map, drawn by Republican legislators earlier this year.
“District Court Judge Shelly Dick, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled earlier this month that the map likely violated the VRA. Under the map lines, one of the state’s six districts is majority Black, even though approximately one-third of the state’s population is Black. Republicans have a 5-1 advantage in Louisiana’s congressional delegation, with Democratic Rep. Troy Carter representing the one majority-Black seat. Dick had ordered the Louisiana legislature to redraw the map with a second heavily Black district.
The Supreme Court’s stay of that order likely resolves the last redistricting challenge outstanding ahead of the midterms, locking in 50 states’ worth of congressional lines with a little over four months to go until the November election.” – Politico
If you thought these Supreme Court Justices were going to stop at abortion rights, you are sadly mistaken. This decision led by Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t get much news coverage, but it will affect millions of Americans who encounter the criminal legal system.
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.
Louisiana’s Supreme Court building. Photo by WAFB9 news.
In 2008, a judge sentenced Derek Harris to 15 years for selling a $30 bag of cannabis. Sound extreme? If Harris hadn’t had a record, he surely would not have gotten 15 years for this small-time drug sale. But those 15 years were not enough. The district attorney in Harris’ case took it a step further and filed to have him classified under the habitual offender statute. With one court filing, Harris’ past convictions, which he already paid the price for, were used against him yet again to sentence him to life without parole (LWOP). Harris, like so many others labeled by the (in)justice system as Habitual Offenders, was sentenced to death by prison. Harris started the arduous appeals process, desperately pleading that some judge, at some level, recognized that dying in prison was too extreme. He hoped they would agree that only a bad lawyer could have let this happen. Thankfully, even between uninspired lawyers and bureaucratic red tape, Derek’s latest lawyers (the only good ones) convinced the Louisiana Supreme Court (LASC) to overturn their previous decision. With their ruling out last week, on his sixth stage in his process, he won the opportunity for his case to be reviewed.
The ultra-punitive nature of prosecutors and judges is only one part of the courtroom equation that explains why Louisiana leads the nation in mass incarceration. Other parts include (a) defense counsel, and (b) restrictive appellate rules that can block even the most unconstitutional actions from being reviewed.
The LASC ruling declared that appellate judges CAN review errors during sentencing, including ineffective assistance of counsel. This is a major victory in creating fair appellate rules–but how many people will be able to benefit? It will take a few more cases to test the boundaries of this ruling, but our calculation is that those who tried to get their sentences reviewed (including when judges wrongfully thought the application of a Habitual Offender sentence was mandatory) but were categorically barred from raising the issues, will have a new window for appealing their case. For those people denied under Meline v. Louisiana (1996), they may have a year to build and file their case. While ultimately this is TBD, impacted people should seek legal advice.
Keep reading for a deeper dive into the legal analysis of this case.
