Six years ago, Louisianans were weighing the merits of requiring juries to arrive at unanimous verdicts, then the law in every other state save for Oregon. The most vocal opposition to the idea came from district attorneys, some of whom warned that a slew of hung-jury verdicts would result if Louisiana stopped allowing convictions on 10-2 or 11-1 votes. Louisiana voters didn’t think much of the argument: The measure to require unanimity passed by a nearly two-thirds margin. More than a thousand jury trials have taken place in the state in the years since. Data about those trials shows that the tsunami of mistrials resulting from juries that couldn’t agree never materialized. In fact, the rate of hung-jury verdicts hasn’t budged at all in the years since voters changed the law, the Times-Picayune/New Orleans Advocate reports.
According to an analysis of seven of Louisiana’s busiest judicial districts, those districts have tried at least 542 cases before 12-member juries. Just 4.4% of those juries – 24 in total – couldn’t agree on a verdict on at least one charge. A similar but larger analysis, conducted by the newspaper before the law was changed, found a hung-jury rate of 4.6%. That survey included nearly 2,000 cases tried before 12-member juries between 2011 and 2016. The difference in the rate of hung juries before and after unanimity was required is statistically insignificant. Essentially, it’s identical. That doesn’t mean the change in the law hasn’t had any effect on the justice system. Prosecutors and defense attorneys say it’s had a range of impacts: Longer deliberations. More cautious jury selection. In some cases, more fulsome plea discussions. And perhaps more “compromise” verdicts, with juries convicting defendants on less serious charges when unanimity on the stiffest charge is elusive.