Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Goodleygreen2 sentences2006In Goodley , the court noted, "if the state does not want to meet the unanimous verdict requirement mandated in prosecutions of capital crimes, it can re-charge the defendant with a non-capital crime." Goodley, 398 So.2d at 1071 . 1982See State v. Goodley, 398 So.2d 1068 (La.1981). [4] This identical argument was raised in State v. Gilmore, 332 So.2d 789 (La.1976) where the defendant objected to the district attorney amending a first degree murder indictment in open court to charge second degree murder on the basis that he was deprived of a vested right to a unanimous jury verdict. [5] We rejected defendant's argument concluding that the district attorney was inherently empowered to amend the indictment to *674 charge a lesser included offense which amendment not only lessened the gravity of the charge but also eliminated t | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences1981In view of these court actions in Gilmore, supra, and Sermon, supra, and the constitutional and statutory provisions outlined above, we find that a unanimous jury is required in a case where the defendant is being prosecuted under an unamended charge of first degree murder, a capital offense, to render any verdict, notwithstanding the fact that the state may have stipulated that it would not seek the death penalty. [4] As was the result in Gilmore, supra, if the state does not want to meet the unanimous verdict requirement mandated in prosecutions of capital crimes, it can re-charge the defend 1981In view of these court actions in Gilmore, supra, and Sermon, supra, and the constitutional and statutory provisions outlined above, we find that a unanimous jury is required in a case where the defendant is being prosecuted under an unamended charge of first degree murder, a capital offense, to render any verdict, notwithstanding the fact that the state may have stipulated that it would not seek the death penalty. [4] As was the result in Gilmore, supra, if the state does not want to meet the unanimous verdict requirement mandated in prosecutions of capital crimes, it can re-charge the defend | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramos v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2020The defendant cites Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U.S. _, 140 S. Ct. 1390 , 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020). 2020The defendant cites Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U.S. _, 140 S. Ct. 1390 , 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State ex rel. Spears v. Braniff
neutral
1 sentence1981In view of these court actions in Gilmore, supra, and Sermon, supra, and the constitutional and statutory provisions outlined above, we find that a unanimous jury is required in a case where the defendant is being prosecuted under an unamended charge of first degree murder, a capital offense, to render any verdict, notwithstanding the fact that the state may have stipulated that it would not seek the death penalty. [4] As was the result in Gilmore, supra, if the state does not want to meet the unanimous verdict requirement mandated in prosecutions of capital crimes, it can re-charge the defend | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Schoonover
green
2 sentences1969“We must await a clear exposition of this point by the Federal Supreme Court before we can decide whether a unanimous verdict is a requirement of the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution which is obligatory on the States.” State v. Schoonover, 252 La. 311 , 211 So.2d 273, 278 . 1969“We must await a clear exposition of this point by the Federal Supreme Court before we can decide whether a unanimous verdict is a requirement of the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution which is obligatory on the States.” State v. Schoonover, 252 La. 311 , 211 So.2d 273, 278 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Duncan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1969The case of Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491 , is not apposite. 1969The case of Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491 , is not apposite. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.