INSIGHT: Louisiana Has Chance to Restore Justice for 1,300 Convictions

The judicial system in the state of Louisiana has long been distinguished as harsh, unrelenting, and strict. Characterized by high rates of convictions and tough sentence enhancements for habitual offenders, the state’s prison system is saturated and overpopulated.

Louisiana’s prison system has accumulated international notoriety due to its incarceration rate of 1,052 per 100,000 residents—far greater than that of the entire U.S. (698), U.K. (139), Portugal (129), and Canada (114).

A bona fide assessment of why Louisiana incarcerates more people per capita than any other jurisdiction anywhere in the world must examine Louisiana’s endorsement of conviction by non-unanimous verdicts, commonly referred to as “Jim Crow Juries.” The nickname is significant due to its adoption in the post-Civil War era and its tendency to harbor racial biases.

Currently, over 120,000 Louisiana residents are under criminal justice supervision, of which 31,609 are behind bars in federal and state facilities. More alarmingly, Louisiana—on a comparative basis— has the greatest percentage of its prison population serving life with no possibility of parole.

To some, these statistics indicate a higher rate of crime and lawlessness in Louisiana, but the root causes of these higher conviction and incarceration rates attest to a systemic problem in the state’s courts. A cursory statistical analysis of the state’s prison population reveals a significant imbalance—98% are male, and more than two-thirds are Black.

Jim Crow Juries

Introduced in 1898 at a Constitutional Convention, Louisiana State leaders instituted a policy that allowed criminal convictions in cases where juries were at odds or did not all agree beyond a reasonable doubt of a defendant’s culpability. To avoid controversy at the federal level, lawmakers made an exception for felony cases, where convictions required unanimous verdicts. Oregon was the only other U.S. state to adopt a similar policy but it was not invoked as frequently as in Louisiana.

Many consider the policy as a contributor to Louisiana’s notoriety as the incarceration capital of the world. From 1898 until 2018, thousands of citizens were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms by hung juries and predicated on weak cases with insufficient evidence that disproportionately impacted those of color.

This practice was the focus of national attention in 2018 when Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution that outlawed the practice in future trials but did not address ongoing trials or those formerly convicted.

This year, the policy made headlines once again as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, finding jurors in any criminal offense at the state or federal level must vote unanimously to convict a defendant.

The decision involved the case of Evangelisto Ramos, who appealed a 2016 Louisiana murder conviction as a result of a 10-2 hung jury vote. The defendant’s legal team argued that the non-unanimous jury law in the state was racially-charged and biased, therefore permitting racial discrimination within juries and against defendants in the court of law.

The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that respectively outline due process and trial by an impartial jury. The decision further specified that unanimous juries are required in guilty verdicts, overturning a 1972 decision made in Apodaca v. Oregon.

As a result, the Louisiana Supreme Court only agreed to review the ongoing, pending cases when the Ramos decision was made. This figure is estimated to be around 300, according to the Louisiana Promise of Justice Initiative.

The ruling in Ramos signifies a monumental accomplishment for those advocating criminal justice reform at the local, state, and national levels. However, the fight continues.

Retroactive Ruling

Neither the state nor the federal court has ruled on whether the decision made in Ramos should be applied retroactively to those convicted by Jim Crow Juries. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the question in the upcoming term, following a cert grant in Edwards v. Vannoy.

This ruling will affect an estimated 1,300 inmates currently behind bars in Louisiana. Some state lawmakers and justice officials have voiced their concerns for a retroactive ruling, as it will likely result in a significant bureaucratic commitment to oversee the retrial of inmates who have exhausted their right to appeal. Nevertheless, it’s their duty to ensure citizens deprived of their constitutional rights receive justice as swiftly as possible.

It is time to rectify the verdicts made under the premise of Jim Crow laws. These outdated practices have not only contributed to wrongful convictions and inappropriate sentences, they have also obstructed justice and weakened the effectiveness of the state’s judicial system. They have silenced viewpoints and deprived credibility in criminal justice.

While it is not possible to fully mend the human losses of years past, a retrospective ruling presents a unique opportunity to restore justice and initiate necessary reform.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.

Author Information

Bradley Egenberg, is an attorney in New Orleans and founder of Egenberg APLC, a partner of the Law Center.