In October the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Evangelisto Ramos, convicted of second-degree murder in 2014 by a 10-2 vote of a split jury.
The decision from the court could have far reaching implications into the constitutionality of split jury decisions, which have been used in Louisiana since 1898, according to a Times-Picayune/New Orleans Advocate story.
At issue is whether the law has been unfavorable to defendants of color. The newspaper reports the law has disproportionately been used to convict blacks over whites.
But Attorney General Jeff Landry, in the filing of a brief, says efficiency is the aim of the split-jury law. It also emphasizes the reform put in place in 1974, which upped to the requirement to convict from nine votes to ten.
Landry warns if the Supreme Court revisits its near 50-year old decision upholding split decisions, it could throw the justice system in Louisiana into chaos as potentially every felony conviction returned on a split decision is challenged.
Ramos defense attorney Ben Cohen argues the Sixth Amendment to the constitution requires a unanimous decision in a jury trial and that the 14th Amendment ensures that right is extended to all Americans.
