Latest news with #SenateBill218
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana Senate rejects bill for new trials on Jim Crow juries
BATON ROUGE, La. (KTAL/KMSS) — A segment of people in Louisiana prisons have lost their chance to appeal their cases. Proposed bill in Texas would prohibit minors from using social media. Learn tips for managing child's online activity The Louisiana Senate failed to pass Senate Bill 218, which Senator Royce Duplessis introduced and would have allowed people convicted by 'Jim Crow Juries' to receive new trials. In 1898, Louisiana adopted the split jury convictions during a constitutional convention. This allowed white majority juries to convict black people without coming to a unanimous decision. Louisiana House advances state budget in 2025 legislative session The practice of non-unanimous convictions continued in Louisiana until 2018. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice violated the right to an impartial jury, a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Oregon, the other state that allowed split decisions, granted new trials to hundreds of people. SB 218 would have given people in Louisiana jails the same relief. SB 218 failed on a 9-26 vote, completely along party lines. Republican lawmakers were concerned with overburdening courts with additional trials and the possibility of witnesses being dead or evidence being lost. Supporters countered that district attorneys would ultimately decide whether to hold new trials and that transcripts of testimony from old trials are already used in cases. DOJ dismisses investigations of civil rights violations by Louisiana State Police New Orleans Democrat Senator Royce Duplessis, who authored the bill, said, 'If we choose to vote down this bill, we're saying that justice has an expiration date. We have an opportunity in Louisiana to remove this stain, because right now we are the only ones wearing it.' The lopsided nature of the vote, with only one month left in this year's Legislative Session, makes it unlikely that the bill will have another chance at this session despite the fact that 65% of voters surveyed supported it. For now, an estimated 1,000 men and women in Louisiana prisons, despite the jury not being unanimous, are waiting for a path out. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Old split-jury verdicts in Louisiana could be revisited under advancing proposal
Herman Evans, who spent decades in prison for a crime he didn't commit, embraces a supporter after a Louisiana Senate committee approved a bill Tuesday, April 29, 2025, that would allow persons convicted by a split jury verdict to seek a retrial. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled split jury verdicts were unconstitutional, but it left it up to states to decide if they would apply the law retroactively to past convictions. (Delaney Nolan/Louisiana Illuminator) A packed legislative committee meeting erupted with cheers and sobs of joy Tuesday, as a bill advanced a long-awaited remedy for people imprisoned in Louisiana under unconstitutional split-jury verdicts. Senate Bill 218, by Sen. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, would allow people convicted by non-unanimous juries to petition for their cases to be reviewed. The Senate Committee on Judiciary B approved the proposal in a 5-1 vote. Up until 2018, Louisiana and Oregon were the only two states where defendants could be convicted if at least 10 of 12 jurors voted guilty. The standard goes back to a Jim Crow era law intended to nullify the voice of Black jurors. As of 2020, about 80% of people incarcerated in Louisiana on split-jury verdicts were Black based on a Project of Justice Initiative analysis. Louisiana voters approved an amendment in 2018 to do away with split verdicts, though it did not impact persons already tried and sentenced by a non-unanimous jury vote. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana that split-jury convictions are unconstitutional, but justices left it up to states to determine if the ruling would apply retroactively to older cases. Two years later, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the change applied only to verdicts after 2018, meaning those convicted by split juries before 2018 had no recourse. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Duplessis' bill would change that, but it still faces long odds in the Republican-dominated legislature. The bill, which found bipartisan support in committee, would need nine Republicans to support it on the Senate floor in addition to all Democrats. Gov. Jeff Landry, when he was attorney general, argued against the abandonment of split-jury verdicts when Ramos was before the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of Landry's arguments were echoed by the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, which opposes the bill. Its members argue, in part, that it would be too complex and costly to retry people convicted by split juries. There are currently 773 people incarcerated in Louisiana on non-unanimous jury convictions, according to the Promise of Justice Initiative. Duplessis' bill would allow them to petition for a retrial. If a judge deems the defendant eligible, their conviction would be voided, and a district attorney would then decide whether to re-prosecute their case, offer a plea deal, or dismiss the charges. Duplessis and other supporters pointed out any retrials would still favor the prosecutor because they could reuse witness testimony from the original trial, while the defense couldn't necessarily cross-examine those witnesses if they have since died or are otherwise unavailable. Will Snowden, a Loyola University law professor, said 13 people convicted by non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana have been exonerated, citing figures from the Innocence Project New Orleans. Striking testimony for the bill came from Herman Evans, who was convicted in 1980 on a 10-2 jury and spent decades in Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola for a murder he didn't commit. The Promise of Justice Initiative had his conviction overturned in 2024. Evans spoke of losing his father, daughter and three sisters while wrongly imprisoned. 'Every time I tried to make my voice heard over 37 years, I kept getting one word: denied,' Evans said. Upon release, he said, 'I left a lot of people behind that deserve to have their unconstitutional convictions overturned.' Jermaine Hudson, who was wrongfully convicted in 1999 in New Orleans by a split jury, spoke to the committee alongside Bobby Gumpright, whose false testimony as an 18-year-old led to Hudson's conviction. Hudson spent 22 years in prison for an armed robbery that never happened. On Tuesday, Gumpright wept as he spoke of Hudson's forgiveness. 'I couldn't change the past, but I could refuse to live the lie any longer while injustice continued,' Gumpright said. 'Louisiana can't change the past. But Louisiana can refuse to let its injustice live on.' Zach Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, disagreed with the assessment that all non-unanimous jury convictions are unjust. Some jurors who don't vote for convictions do so because they actually want stronger charges, such as first-degree murder instead of second-degree murder, Daniels said. He did not offer data on the frequency of such cases, but he disputed the Promise of Justice Initiative's count of people who could be entitled to new trials. The number is much larger than 773, he said. Sen. Joseph Bouie, D-New Orleans, rejected Daniels' arguments. 'What about those individuals who were convicted and were innocent? The scope of work should not be an issue. The cost should not be an issue,' Bouie said. 'If we do not afford the opportunity, we close the doors of justice that are the result of a system of racism that created this problem.' Sen. Patrick McMath, R-Covington, agreed with Bouie. 'If there's just one innocent person serving time for a crime that they didn't do, I don't know how you justify the rationale that [because] this is difficult to do, we shouldn't do it,' McMath told Daniels. Duplessis also argued it is a disservice to victims to not ensure the right person has been convicted — and that wrongfully convicted people are themselves victims. The dialogue between Duplessis and Daniels grew heated toward the end of the two-hour hearing, as Duplessis challenged him on several points. He criticized Daniels for not having reached out to district attorneys in Oregon, where more than 700 people were retried after split-jury verdicts and it did not snarl the courts. 'I think it's a slap in the face to this committee because what it shows us is that you're not trying to solve the problem,' Duplessis told Daniels. 'I'm trying to find a solution. The question is: Are you?' After Sen. Robert Owen, R-Slidell, cast the clinching 'yes' vote to advance the bill to the Senate floor, cheers, applause and cries of 'thank you' broke out from the committee room crowd. Owen joined McMath, Bouie, Duplessis and Sen. Jimmie Harris, D-New Orleans, in supporting the proposal. Sen. Kirk Talbot, R-River Ridge, cast the only vote in opposition. He briefly noted during debate that no district attorneys showed up to support Duplessis' bill at Tuesday's committee hearing. 'There's no daylight between public opinion and doing the right thing on non-unanimous juries,' Mary-Patricia Wray, who's lobbied for the Promise of Justice Initiative since 2016, told Illuminator. 'This issue isn't controversial outside the Capitol. Voters already decided what justice looks like. Now it's the legislature's turn to catch up.' In the hallway after the hearing, people who had come to support the bill wept openly and hugged each other. 'I feel great,' Evans told the Illuminator, smiling broadly before turning away for another embrace. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nevada one of several states considering boosting antitrust protections
The office of Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who last year joined several other states in an ultimately successful effort to block a proposed merger between grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, did not respond to a request for comment about the bill. (Photo: April Corbin Girnus/Nevada Current) Nevada could be the first state to adopt legislation that would boost its ability to fight or address antitrust concerns. Senate Bill 218 would adopt the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act, which would require companies to submit to state attorneys general the same notices and information they are already required to provide federal agencies prior to mergers or acquisitions. 'It does not require the attorney general to try and stop the merger,' emphasized state Sen. James Ohrenschall, the bill sponsor, during his presentation Thursday to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee. It only requires that the AG be made aware of the proposal so they can analyze the impact of a merger or acquisition on industries, markets, and consumers in the state. The legislation was drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, a longstanding national nonprofit, nonpartisan group behind other broadly adopted state legislation, including the Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Ohrenschall serves as a ULC commissioner. The pre-merger notification act has been introduced into eight state legislatures this year, including California, Utah and Colorado, according to ULC. States have the same right to enforce the federal merger law, said Dan Robbins, who chaired the ULC committee that drafted the act, but they may not find out about a proposed merger for months after their federal counterparts do. 'What often happens is a state will learn about it in a newspaper and say, 'Oh my goodness… I might want to take a look at that,'' said Robbins. 'What the state then needs to do is issue subpoenas and go into litigation, spending taxpayer dollars to get information that it could already have.' That's not good for businesses, he continued, which don't want states to come in months after they believe a deal is closed and say they have concerns. Under SB 218, Nevada would be notified only if the Silver State is the primary place of business or if the business has more than $25 million in net sales within the state. The attorney general's office would be prohibited from charging any fees for filing. Nevada already requires certain health care companies to inform the state about potential mergers. Lawmakers passed that legislation in 2021 over growing concerns about the consolidation of healthcare companies, particularly by private equity firms. SB 218 as introduced would expand notice to all companies making filings to the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division as required by the federal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. The filings would be confidential at the state level, just as they are at the federal level. Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford did not participate in the legislative hearing Thursday. The Current asked Ford's office whether he is supportive of the bill but did not receive a response by publication time. Ford last year joined several other states and the FTC in an ultimately successful effort to block a proposed merger between grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons. In 2019, Ford took action against a proposed merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, which was resolved with a $30 million settlement for Nevada. The Nevada Resort Association submitted an amendment to exempt businesses regulated by an administrative or regulatory agency. NRA Lobbyist Misty Grimmer told the committee those in the gaming industry are already required to give similar notice to the Nevada Gaming Control Board for approval of mergers and acquisitions of any size, so the act would be duplicative. The attorney general serves as legal counsel for the state's gaming division. State Sen. Skip Daly expressed concern the wording of the proposed amendment might be too vague and used by other industries lawmakers don't intend to exempt. Ohrenshall, Grimmer and the committee's legal counsel said they would work on refining the language of the amendment. The state legislation is being introduced against the backdrop of President Donald Trump firing two members of the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces antitrust laws. 'When people hear this news,' one of the commissioners who was fired told the New York Times 'they need to think about the billionaires behind the president at his inauguration.'
