The Case for Barring Louisiana from Retrial Following Ramos vs. Louisiana
The landmark Supreme Court Decision in Ramos vs. Louisiana, which declared non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional , marked a significant step towards ensuring fairness and justice in American legal system. However, the State of Louisiana's persistent attempts to retry cases that were vacated due to Ramos vs. Louisiana raises concerns. This essay argues that Louisiana should be barred from retrial in cases where convictions were vacated due to Ramos vs. Louisiana because the district court maintained jurisdiction throughout the process , time is stayed by a judicially declared mistrial nor incomplete trial , and the commencement of a new trial remains one year from discharge of the jury. Additionally , We will explore non retrials in the aftermath of Ramos vs. Louisiana perpetuate racial discriminatory practices.
About Us
MISSION: Our mission is to give a voice to those who aren't being heard. Serving unjust sentences and being wrongfully convicted is inhumane. We want to shed a light on what's going within the judicial system such as racial inequalities and systemic racism. Our goal is to bring the hidden facts to the surface where you can't deny the truth. There are too many of our loved ones serving sentences they shouldn't be. It's up to us to help support them because the system isn't.
The "Burning Bush " Editorial
Update : This Civil Rights suit is now on appeal in the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeal
10/2 Rally Shirts and Hats available
1
In Louisiana ,over 1000 indispensable parties of " Incarcerated Victims ' of the 10/2 , 11/1 , non-unanimous jury verdict scheme that's being Unconstitutionally held , falsely incarcerated, have joined in solidarity in a federally filed Civil Rights suit in the United States Eastern District Court, wherein former U.S Senate Candidate Reverend Errol Victor Sr. Case # 22-01539 , petitions for 3.2 Billion in liabilities and reparations , also demanding a judgement of acquittal , that unconstitutional convictions and sentences be vacated and the immediate release of all wrongfully convicted victims.
Victor avers that retrials are barred by the United States Double jeopardy Clause and that the immunity is due to the deliberate and purposeful " Governmental Oppression" that is vindictive and racially intended to practice interposition and nullification of the Supremacy Clause of the United States in his "Let My People Go" campaign.
2 District Court Jurisdiction
One compelling reason for barring Louisiana from retrial lies in the fact that the district court maintained jurisdiction throughout the process. In Ramos vs. Louisiana, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that non-unanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. As such, the convictions that were overturned were done so on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Since the district court had original jurisdiction over these cases, its authority extends to ensuring that constitutional violations are rectified properly. Allowing retrials in these cases essentially disregards the district court's jurisdiction and undermines the principles of judicial authority.
3 Time and the Commencement of New Trials
Another crucial factor is that time is not stayed by a judicially declared mistrial nor incomplete trial, and the commencement of a new trial remains one year from the discharge of the jury. The principles of justice and fairness dictate that wrongful convictions should be addressed promptly and not subjected to endless retrials. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this in Arizona vs. Washington (98 S. Ct. 824), emphasizing the need for timely proceedings. Allowing Louisiana to repeatedly retry cases following Ramos vs. Louisiana would not only delay justice but also violate the principles established by precedent.
4 Perpetuating Racial Discriminatory Practices
Beyond the procedural concerns, retrials following Ramos vs. Louisiana risk perpetuating racial discriminatory practices. The original non-unanimous jury system in Louisiana disproportionately affected minority communities. Green vs. U.S. (78 S. Ct. 221) underscores the significance of combating governmental oppression and racial discrimination in the legal system. Allowing retrials without a strong justification runs the risk of disproportionately impacting minority defendants, further undermining the principles of equal protection under the law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, barring the State of Louisiana from retrial in cases where convictions were vacated due to Ramos vs. Louisiana is a necessary step to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and equality. The district court's jurisdiction, the need for timely proceedings, and the potential perpetuation of racial discrimination all support this argument. It is imperative that the American legal system continues to evolve towards a fairer and more just society, and preventing retrials in these cases is a crucial part of that process.