Portland, Oregon 2021-07-23 21:00:10 –
Portland, Oregon (KOIN) — Trial due to error … or trial system error? Oregon’s controversial history, including the unanimous jury’s decision, remains a topic of debate as lawmakers are working on whether to give new trials to hundreds of Oregons convicted of crime. I am.
This debate takes place after the Supreme Court has found the unanimous jury’s conviction to be unconstitutional. Ramos vs Louisiana In 2020, it forced Oregon, the last state to allow a jury split decision, to renew its law.
However, this decision did not apply retroactively.In other words, the jury convicted Ramos Judgments (many of them whose defendants are still behind the bar) will not be given relief. As the fate of these cases has returned to the state, the jury is still looking at ways to deal with them.
KOIN 6 News spoke with one of the hundreds of Oregons fighting for a second chance, including Terrence Hayes.
In 2004, Terrence Hayes was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison with 10-2 votes. “10 out of 12 is historically a good number that doesn’t work for minorities,” Hayes explained. “So you’re talking about sitting in jail for 13 years knowing you didn’t Technically Get a fair trial. “
“Convicted beyond reasonable doubt! That’s how our judicial system is supposed to work,” Hayes said. “How can I say that there was no doubt in my case when the two juries didn’t even think I was guilty?”
Following the Supreme Court Ramos The decision was made by the Oregon Legislature in the spring of 2021 as a unanimous jury from state law. Senate Bill 139A.. The legislation, which is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature, did not address retrospectiveness. Currently, some lawmakers argue that simply adjusting our law is not enough.
While discussing the SB193A on the house floor, Congressman Janel Bynum said: very I will do anything unless I deal with about 300 or 400 Oregons who have been convicted under a unanimous jury and are waiting for a second opportunity to discuss their case. “
Aliza Kaplan, Professor of Lewis and Clar Claw School and their director Criminal Justice Reform Clinic One of the many reasons to consider retroactiveness is the history of racism surrounding Oregon law. “The law was based on alien exclusion and anti-Semitism, but has been in force mainly for blacks over the last 90 years,” Kaplan explained. “When you know, the law is based on discrimination and is in books that have been practiced in a discriminatory way for almost 90 years … and afterwards It turned out to be unconstitutional. I think it’s very important to go back and correct those mistakes. “
At that time, about 420 cases were actively appealed directly. Ramos The ruling was abandoned and given a second chance in their trial. Kaplan further highlighted the main differences between these cases. It’s just the timing that isn’t getting relief like Hay. “We really don’t care that you were convicted under the unconstitution and that it’s completely racist.” It doesn’t matter because it wasn’t timely. “Kaplan shouted. “And it just feels very unfair and unfair. People want a second chance to start over.”
Mr. Hayes told KOIN 6 News that the controversy and contradiction over Oregon’s unanimous jury law should require Oregon citizens to ask the following questions: And what? “
At the time of Hayes’ conviction, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum was the presiding judge. Ironically, she now has the opportunity to change Haze’s life again and hopes he will be better.
“The Attorney General has choices,” Kaplan said. “Is her office fighting retrospective? Is she just letting them go? Or, better yet, is she stipulating retroactiveness? … And in all the cases filed, she The office fought the petitioner and said it was not retroactive. “
Rosenblum, in addition to actively blocking retrospectives Easy to Supreme Court in 2019 Despite publicly calling the unanimous jury law “otherwise embarrassment of a progressive state,” they urged them not to change it.After their decision, Rosenblum Second briefs in 2020 He urged the court not to make a retroactive decision, citing concerns that the court would be “overwhelmed” in the appeal. And she is not alone in her concerns.
“It’s definitely chaotic! We’re talking about overturning thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of convictions.” Explained retired Clatsop County DA Joshua Marquis.
Marquis told KOIN 6 News that not only would he detain the court, but that he would allow the jury to go retroactive, causing the victim to relive the trauma and the prosecutor convicted of sexual assault. He said it would be more and more difficult to do.
“I’ve tried these cases for nearly 40 years, and there’s a lot of skepticism. yet When women, girls, and children come forward, “Marquis pointed out. “And almost every verdict I got was 11-1 or 10-2 guilty.”
Under the new unanimous law, these votes are not enough to get convicted. “When it comes to services, it sounds very simple.” Now that we’ve done justice, just like in any other country, let’s go back and start over in all cases. “-But that doesn’t happen. !! Marquis explained.
And while retroactiveness will undoubtedly be a logistical nightmare for the court system, Hayes is now responsible for redressing the situation of him and others like him who have been sacrificed by the unconstitution. Insist.
“The court is a problem. I’m human, I’m human!” Hayes exclaimed. “My life is important! The time of my life is important-this moment I spend with family and friends is important and I can’t get it back! So people sit in the comfort zone, When they exhale that nonsense, they absolutely value the thing, the concept, more than the human beings that the thing and the concept were supposed to protect. “
For Hayes and others like him, retroactiveness, if admitted, is not an “escape card from prison.” Defendants are responsible for proving that their proceedings were the result of a unanimous jury decision in order to resume the trial process at the county level. Most courts did not keep a record of the verdict that was the result of a unanimous jury verdict, so the feat was not achieved so easily.
Currently about 250 (unprotected) Ramos) I appealed.
And Oregon’s Attorney General and the legislature couldn’t pass a bill to deal with retroactive law before the end of the session, and it’s not just Oregon’s law that seems unanimous.
Jury still out on split-jury cases as hundreds seek new trials Source link Jury still out on split-jury cases as hundreds seek new trials