Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bertrand, 6 So. 3d 738.

195 citing documents.

Followed State v. Ford 275 So. 3d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
03/17/09), and Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct.
Followed State of Louisiana Versus Derrick A. Ford, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
03/17/09), and Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Edwin Paul Frinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Frinks 274 So. 3d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Joshua David Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Followed State v. Acevedo 273 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3/17/09), , and Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Pike 273 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Followed State of Louisiana Versus Marvin S. Acevedo La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
3/17/09), and Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. David Billy Parker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Parker 270 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3/17/09), , the trial court found that La.
State v. Young 270 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3/17/09), , 742, the Court noted, "defendants argue that the use of non-unanimous verdicts [has] an insidious racial component, allow[s] minority viewpoints to be ignored, and is likely to chill participation by the precise groups whose exclusion the Constitution has proscribed."
State v. Johnson 266 So. 3d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3/17/09), , 742-43 ; Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Julius Jamal Garnett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
3/17/09), and Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct.
State v. Garnett 266 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3/17/09), and Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Harlow Hutchinson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Hutchinson 261 So. 3d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Heard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3/17/09), and Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct.
Followed State v. Williams 259 So. 3d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Heard 258 So. 3d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/17/09), , and Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Zachary Alexander Bench La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Bench 256 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Brooks 258 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/17/09), , addressed this issue several years ago: "Finally, defendants argue that the use of non-unanimous verdicts have an insidious racial component, allow minority viewpoints to be ignored, and is likely to chill participation by the precise groups whose exclusion the Constitution has proscribed."
State v. Alridge 249 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/17/09), , 742 ; State v. Curtis, 11-1676, p. 23 (La.
State v. McBride 239 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/17/09), ; State v. Curtis , 2011-1676 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Ali Lee Barconey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Barconey 241 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Adam Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3/17/09), the supreme court, when discussing the use of non-unanimous jury verdicts, stated, “[A] trial judge is not at liberty to ignore the controlling jurisprudence of superior courts.” Furthermore, in State v. Saulny, 16-734, p. 14 (La.App.
State v. Comeaux 239 So. 3d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/17/09), , 743, the supreme court, when discussing the use of non-unanimous jury verdicts, stated, "[A] trial judge is not at liberty to ignore the controlling jurisprudence of superior courts."
State of Louisiana v. Roderick Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3/17/09), and State v. Saulny, 16-734 (La.App.
State v. Thomas 237 So. 3d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/17/09), ; and State v. Saulny , 16-734 (La.App.
State v. Cespedes 241 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Berry 221 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
3/17/09), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Due to this Court’s prior determinations that Article 782 withstands constitutional scrutiny, and because we are not presumptuous enough to suppose, upon mere speculation, that the United States Supreme Court’s still valid determination that non-unanimous 12 person jury verdicts a
State v. Saulny 220 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3/17/09), ; State v. Brooks, 12-226 (La.App.
State v. Bravo 219 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3/17/09), ; Brooks, 103 So.3d at 613-14 .
State v. Calhoun 216 So. 3d 1101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
03/17/09), ; State v. Henry, 47,323 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. David Wayne Sims La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
In State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311 (La.3/17/09), the Louisiana Supreme Court specifically reversed a district court ruling which found LSA-C.Cr.P.
State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311 (La.3/17/09), .
State v. Jackson 193 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3020 , 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)(recognizing Apo-daca ’s continuing viability); State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215 (La.3/17/09), ; State v. Curtis, 2011-1676 (La.App.
State v. Hickman 194 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
In State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215, pp. 6-7 (La.3/17/09), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that non-unanimous jury verdicts were not unconstitutional.
State v. Dove 194 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972); State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311, pp. 6-7 (La.3/17/09), ; State v. Curtis, 11-1676, p. 23 (La.App.
State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Betrand, 08-2216, pp. 6-7 (La.3/17/09), .
State v. Kennon 194 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Bertrand, 08-2215 (La.03/17/09), ; State v. Blueford, 48,823 (La.App.2d Cir.03/05/14), , writ denied, 14-0745 (La.11/21/14), , cert.
State ex rel. Arnaud v. State 188 So. 3d 1004 La. 2016
The First Circuit Court of Appeal recently addressed this same issue, relying on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215 (3/17/09) : In two related assignments of error, the defendant argües that Louisiana Constitution article I, 517 A, that allows for non-unanimous juty verdicts, violates the and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Specifically, the defendant argues that the enactment of its source provision in the Louisiana
State v. Bonilla 186 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See, State v. Bertrand, 08-2215 (La.3/17/09), ; State v. Brooks, 12-226 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Eric Abshire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3020 , 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)(recognizing Apodac a continuing viability); State v. Bertrand, 2008-2215 (La.3/17/09), ; State v. Curtis, 201 1-1676 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3/17/09), the supreme court reiterated that Article 782 withstands constitutional scrutiny.