I will respond more thoroughly later, but one thing I want to iterate now.
I do believe absolutely in the concept of jury unanimity. I believe it is a strong protection to a defendant. I cannot support even 10-2 or 11-1 requirements. We should put the heaviest burden on the State to prove its criminal allegations against a defendant.
Unfortunately, too much crap going on here now to go in depth.
âŚYet, the State stresses, the Senate replaced âimpartial jury of freeholders of the vicinageâ with âimpartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committedâ and also removed the explicit references to unanimity, the right of challenge, and âother accustomed requisites.â In light of these revisions, Louisiana would have us infer an intent to abandon the
common lawâs traditional unanimity requirement. But this snippet of drafting history could just as easily support the opposite inference. Maybe the Senate deleted the language about unanimity, the right of challenge, and
âother accustomed prerequisitesâ because all this was so plainly included in the promise of a âtrial by an impartial juryâ that Senators considered the language surplusage.
The truth is that we have little contemporaneous evidence shedding light on why the Senate acted as it did. So rather than dwelling on text left on the cutting room floor, we are much better served by interpreting the language Congress retained and the States ratified. And, as weâve seen, at the time of the Amendmentâs adoption, the right to a jury trial meant a trial in which the jury renders a unanimous verdict.