heres some food for thought on how the system works down in louisiana, where C-Murder was convicted of murder for the 2nd time. this may answer why he deserves a fair trial or have his case thrown out, which also can be said for alot of black men who were wrongly convicted down in jefferson parrish...
for those that are quick to attack C and say he's guilty, do you agree that the system is fair & flawless based on the FACTS GIVEN??? this may shed some serious light on the court system down there since the NAACP is jumping in...
remember that video of him attempting to shoot was for a different case which he pled guilty & got 10 years for with credit served under house arrest. so he's almost free from that case...
http://blog.nola.com/jamesgill/2009/08/how_verdict_policy_hurts_black.html#comments
How verdict policy hurts black defendants
Posted by James Gill, Columnist, The Times-Picayune August 27, 2009 6:36PM
Categories: News Impact Page
Corey Miller's murder trial will surely give the U.S. Supreme Court one more reason to find that non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases are unconstitutional. The court is being asked do so in a case from Oregon, the only state apart from Louisiana where a 10-2 vote is sufficient to convict.
Miller, better known in rap circles as C-Murder, might well be guilty of the second degree murder of which he was convicted. But it is barbarous to send a man to prison for the rest of his life on the strength of the farce just played out in Jefferson Parish.
Chaos reigned in the jury room, and it appears that at least two members were unfit to take part in deliberations. But that can happen regardless of how many votes are required to convict, and probably does not constitute grounds to overturn the conviction.
The Miller case does, however, demonstrate that a majority-verdict policy stacks the odds against black defendants. That, indeed, was why Louisiana abandoned unanimous verdicts in the first place.
Two of the three black jurors in the Miller case held out for acquittal. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to slay a last vestige of Jim Crow by ruling that their votes cannot simply be ignored.
Louisiana insisted on unanimous verdicts until a new constitution was adopted in 1898 with the express intent of establishing "the supremacy of the white race in this state."
Delegates did such a good job that Louisiana, which had 130,344 registered black voters in 1897, had only 5,320 three years later.
Under the 1898 constitution, non-capital cases could be decided 9-3. That remained in effect until the constitution of 1974 made it 10-2, which did not make all that much difference. As the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued in an amicus brief last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused writs in the murder case of Derrick Todd Lee, justice remained elusive for black people.
"When a group forming a majority in the community can elect both the District Attorney and the judge in a parish and then form an effective quorum on the jury, the jury no longer operates effectively as a check on oppression by the government, " the association wrote.
Prosecutors frequently use peremptory challenges to weed out black people during jury selection, according to the amicus brief, although the 10-2 rule means they don't always have to be too obvious about it. A couple or tokens may be safely seated.
In Jefferson Parish, where the population is 23 percent black, 22 percent of juries are all white, 35 percent include one black member and 23 percent include two. Thus black citizens may be denied a meaningful voice in 80 percent of the cases.
If the numbers mirrored demographics, more than half the juries in Jefferson Parish would have three or more black members.
The numbers will doubtless remain skewed however the Supreme Court rules. Still, if non-unanimous juries are declared unconstitutional, the black disadvantage will be significantly diminished.
The Miller trial was a travesty regardless. After Miller was convicted in a 10-2 verdict, juror Mary Jacob told the newspaper she voted guilty just so that everyone could "get the hell out of here."
Jacob was the only white juror who believed the state had not proved its case. But she felt sorry for one of the other two hold-outs, a young woman who was being subjected to "brutal" treatment and "throwing her guts up."
So Jacob decided to end that recalcitrant juror's ordeal by changing her own vote and sending Miller up the river. Miller may feel Jacobs' sympathies were somewhat misdirected.
The juror Jacob sought to protect from further emetic experiences was a young student who repeatedly fell asleep during the trial and then read aloud from a Bible she smuggled into deliberations.
It may be impossible to find 12 people without a kook among them. But they should all be required to agree before a defendant is sentenced to life, even a defendant as unsympathetic as Miller, who just got 10 years for a couple of attempted murders in Baton Rouge.
. . . . . . .
James Gill is a staff writer. He can be reached at 504.826.3318 or at [email protected].
for those that are quick to attack C and say he's guilty, do you agree that the system is fair & flawless based on the FACTS GIVEN??? this may shed some serious light on the court system down there since the NAACP is jumping in...
remember that video of him attempting to shoot was for a different case which he pled guilty & got 10 years for with credit served under house arrest. so he's almost free from that case...
http://blog.nola.com/jamesgill/2009/08/how_verdict_policy_hurts_black.html#comments
How verdict policy hurts black defendants
Posted by James Gill, Columnist, The Times-Picayune August 27, 2009 6:36PM
Categories: News Impact Page
Corey Miller's murder trial will surely give the U.S. Supreme Court one more reason to find that non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases are unconstitutional. The court is being asked do so in a case from Oregon, the only state apart from Louisiana where a 10-2 vote is sufficient to convict.
Miller, better known in rap circles as C-Murder, might well be guilty of the second degree murder of which he was convicted. But it is barbarous to send a man to prison for the rest of his life on the strength of the farce just played out in Jefferson Parish.
Chaos reigned in the jury room, and it appears that at least two members were unfit to take part in deliberations. But that can happen regardless of how many votes are required to convict, and probably does not constitute grounds to overturn the conviction.
The Miller case does, however, demonstrate that a majority-verdict policy stacks the odds against black defendants. That, indeed, was why Louisiana abandoned unanimous verdicts in the first place.
Two of the three black jurors in the Miller case held out for acquittal. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to slay a last vestige of Jim Crow by ruling that their votes cannot simply be ignored.
Louisiana insisted on unanimous verdicts until a new constitution was adopted in 1898 with the express intent of establishing "the supremacy of the white race in this state."
Delegates did such a good job that Louisiana, which had 130,344 registered black voters in 1897, had only 5,320 three years later.
Under the 1898 constitution, non-capital cases could be decided 9-3. That remained in effect until the constitution of 1974 made it 10-2, which did not make all that much difference. As the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued in an amicus brief last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused writs in the murder case of Derrick Todd Lee, justice remained elusive for black people.
"When a group forming a majority in the community can elect both the District Attorney and the judge in a parish and then form an effective quorum on the jury, the jury no longer operates effectively as a check on oppression by the government, " the association wrote.
Prosecutors frequently use peremptory challenges to weed out black people during jury selection, according to the amicus brief, although the 10-2 rule means they don't always have to be too obvious about it. A couple or tokens may be safely seated.
In Jefferson Parish, where the population is 23 percent black, 22 percent of juries are all white, 35 percent include one black member and 23 percent include two. Thus black citizens may be denied a meaningful voice in 80 percent of the cases.
If the numbers mirrored demographics, more than half the juries in Jefferson Parish would have three or more black members.
The numbers will doubtless remain skewed however the Supreme Court rules. Still, if non-unanimous juries are declared unconstitutional, the black disadvantage will be significantly diminished.
The Miller trial was a travesty regardless. After Miller was convicted in a 10-2 verdict, juror Mary Jacob told the newspaper she voted guilty just so that everyone could "get the hell out of here."
Jacob was the only white juror who believed the state had not proved its case. But she felt sorry for one of the other two hold-outs, a young woman who was being subjected to "brutal" treatment and "throwing her guts up."
So Jacob decided to end that recalcitrant juror's ordeal by changing her own vote and sending Miller up the river. Miller may feel Jacobs' sympathies were somewhat misdirected.
The juror Jacob sought to protect from further emetic experiences was a young student who repeatedly fell asleep during the trial and then read aloud from a Bible she smuggled into deliberations.
It may be impossible to find 12 people without a kook among them. But they should all be required to agree before a defendant is sentenced to life, even a defendant as unsympathetic as Miller, who just got 10 years for a couple of attempted murders in Baton Rouge.
. . . . . . .
James Gill is a staff writer. He can be reached at 504.826.3318 or at [email protected].
