Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the appellate court err in its interpretation of Apodaca and Bertrand?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the appellate court err in its interpretation of Apodaca and Bertrand? In this first degree murder prosecution, the jury returned an eleven-to-one guilty vote. Relying on La. C.Cr.P. Art. 782(A), the appellate court conclided that only ten jurors needed to vote guilty to produce a constitutional verdict under Apedaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), and State y. Bertrand, 08-2215 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 738. 2. Louisiana recently voted to change its Constitution to require unanimous verdicts in non-capital cases, where they were not required before. In 2007, without amending the Constitution, the Legislature amended La. R.S. 14:30(C) to give prosecutors a unilateral power to procure first degree murder convictions without unanimous verdicts. a Can the 2007 legislative amendment to La. R.S. 14:30(C) qualify, absent a constitutional amendment, as the “attendant provision” necessary to change the classification of a charged capital offense? b. Is the 2007 amendment to La. R.S. 14:30(C) also unconstitutional because it is redundant to the same provisions found in La. R.S. 14:30.1? | | INTERESTED PARTIES 1. Aaron Orlando Richards, Pro Se Petitioner 2. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary 3. Keith Stutes, Assistant District Attomey ii
2020-04-27
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Ramos</i> v. <i>Louisiana</i>, 590 U. S. ___ (2020). Justice Alito, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand: In this and in all other cases in which the Court grants, vacates, and remands in light of <i>Ramos</i> v. <i>Louisiana</i>, I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand. Justice Thomas would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
2020-04-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.
2019-11-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
2019-11-12
Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed.
2019-09-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including November 12, 2019.
2019-09-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 11, 2019 to December 10, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-09-11
Response Requested. (Due October 11, 2019)
2019-09-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-23
Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
2019-07-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 26, 2019)