The Fight for Justice in our Justice System

Victoria Rocquin
Nov 4 · 6 min read
In a court drawing, Jeffrey Fisher represents Ramos before the Supreme Court. (Art Lein)

Born out of racism and commonly known as “Jim Crow’s Last Stand,” it wasn’t until 2019 that Louisiana citizens gained access to a fair trial when the non-unanimous jury law was repealed. The law allowed for a felony conviction with only 10 members of the jury voting that the defendant is guilty. Now that citizens have access to a fair trial, the big question is how to proceed with cases where people were imprisoned by a non-unanimous jury.

Understanding the issue at hand requires diving into the history books. At the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1898, 138 delegates, all white men, tasked themselves with the job of promoting the supremacy of the white race and keeping recently freed African-American slaves under the yoke of slavery without using the word slavery in a post-civil war society. Louisiana established a convict leasing system which allowed prior slave owners to cheaply lease the labor of convicts, and ensuring the labor force would still be available to run their plantations, according to an article on thelensnola.org by New Orleans public defender and founder of the Juror Project Will Snowden.

For those doubting the true racism infecting this law, taking a peek into the Official Journal of the 1898 Constitutional Convention is certainly worthwhile. Delegate Thomas Semmes declared, “Our mission was, in the first place, to establish the supremacy of the white race in this State to the extent to which it could be legally and constitutionally done.”

And so, the racism so evident in the hearts of the people was further displayed in the law books as well. The law originally required only nine of the twelve jurors to vote guilty to convict a man beyond a reasonable doubt. In the name of efficiency, nine white men could now convict one black man and place him back in chains, except this new form of bondage was now part of the criminal justice system.

Eventually, in 1972, the law was reviewed at the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973. Instead of revoking the law, they simply changed it to require ten jurors in agreement instead of nine to convict a person. The premise of the justice system is convicting a person beyond a reasonable doubt. Two to three members of the jury having doubts as to whether a person is guilty should be considered reasonable doubt. While many people have asked why unanimity is such a big deal in a trial, the issue goes back to the roots of our nation and basic human rights.

In 1787, in his book “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States,” John Adams said, “It is the unanimity of the jury that preserves the rights of mankind.”

The Sixth Amendment provides citizens a right to an impartial jury, and the 14th Amendment bars states from taking away “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The group consensus provides a more thorough trial and protects citizens. A unanimous jury is a right that all citizens should have, but only 48 states gave citizens this right before 2018. It is expected that Oregon will follow suit in the upcoming years.

Through a bipartisan effort led by Senator J.P. Morale, Lobbyist Ed Tarpley, William C. Snowden, and Southern University law professor Angela Allen-Bell, the non-unanimous jury law was repealed by voters in the 2019 election cycle. A huge victory for all Louisiana citizens. While victory may be sweet and the law being changed is certainly a start, the battle for justice is not over yet.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case of Ramos v. Louisiana. Evangelisto Ramos was convicted in the stabbing death of Trincee Fedison by a non-unanimous jury, voting 10–2 in favor of conviction. Ramos maintains that he is innocent. Last spring the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. While the jury’s still out as to whether or not the Supreme Court will side with Ramos, there is certainly reason to believe they are leaning towards his side.

Attorney Jeffrey Fisher is representing Ramos before the Supreme Court and presented valuable points as to why the unanimity of the jury is so crucial to the justice system.

“The purpose underlying a unanimous jury rule involved not the number of jurors voting to convict, but the degree of unanimity, and the extent to which requiring unanimity promotes effective deliberation and ensures that a defendant is convicted by a cross-section of the community, Fisher said.”

Snowden shared how the Ramos case will affect other cases in Louisiana.

“For the Ramos case that’s pending at the Supreme Court, it’s only going to apply to cases that are currently under direct appeal, it won’t have complete retroactivity,” Snowden said. “There’s maybe between 50 and 60 cases that are currently under direct appeal, which means they took their appeal at the time that the law had changed, after the ballot in November 2018.”

Essentially, all cases of a crime committed before the non-unanimous jury law was repealed are still going to be tried under the old law. Only cases of crimes committed after the law was changed or those under direct appeal will have access to the full power of a fair trial. However, there is hope for retroactivity to be in place.

“Hopefully Ramos comes out favorably, but there will have to be completely different litigation for all the other thousands of cases who have been convicted by non-unanimous juries. But I do think that the Ramos cases will be very helpful in that litigation. Oregon still needs to get its act together,” Snowden said.

Oregon is now the only state with an active non-unanimous jury law.

Ed Tarpley, who sat in on the Ramos Case review at the Supreme Court, shared what the future of retroactivity looks like for those who have already been convicted.

“The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Ramos case specifically relates to whether or not the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires unanimity in the jury voting for both federal and state cases. This goes back to the 1972 decision by the Supreme Court case called the Apodaca vs. Oregon case and Johnson vs. Louisiana. What I believe is going to happen is that those cases are going to be overruled and that they will declare the law in Louisiana and Oregon unconstitutional,” Tarpley said.

If this were to happen, Oregon would not have to go through the lengthy process of overturning its non-unanimous jury law, and citizens would have justice more swiftly. The future of retroactivity in the Supreme Court is something Tarpley also touched on.

“Will Snowden’s right, the issue of retroactivity is not before the court, only those cases on direct appeal. But one of the justices did say ‘look we know that retroactivity is not before us today, but we know that’s coming later’ so I’m sure that this case, that this issue, is something that’s going to be litigated for the next several years,” Tarpley said.

Since 1898, men and women in Louisiana have been locked away from their families, many serving life without parole, under unjust convictions. Today, just a year after the citizens of Louisiana voted that non-unanimous juries are unjust and unconstitutional, there is finally hope. Hope for those who are currently being tried, that their case will be tried fairly. Hope for those currently going through the appeals process. Hope for families waiting for the weight of a trial to be lifted from their heads. And yes, there is even a glimmer of hope peeking through the window of the Supreme Court for those sitting behind bars, waiting for retroactivity to be in place.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade