Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

Opinion

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

A small Lady Justice statue.

Getty Images, MarianVejcik

Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA), a special interest lobbying group, stands in the way of justice in Louisiana. On May 21, the LDAA successfully blocked a legislative pathway for hundreds of people to receive fair constitutional trials. Louisiana is the only state in the United States of America where people are serving sentences in prison, some for life, where a jury did not agree on whether they were guilty.

For nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana prisons, a jury could have found them guilty but instead returned a verdict that would be called a “hung jury” if the case had been tried in Alabama, Texas, New York, California, Mississippi, and other states.


For over 100 years, Louisiana allowed people to be convicted of crimes without a unanimous jury. The explicit purpose of this unique provision was to limit the power of Black people who, after slavery, were newly allowed to sit on juries.

For a century, District Attorneys were able to get criminal convictions without having to prove their cases to juries, like the rest of the United States, creating an incarceration conveyor belt.

Sen. Royce Duplessis (D-LA) authored Senate Bill 218, which would have provided a pathway for a fair trial to those sitting in prison in Louisiana with non-unanimous “convictions.”

I am the executive director of the Promise of Justice Initiative, a civil rights organization based in Louisiana. In 2019, we argued before the United States Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana that taking freedom without a unanimous jury violated the rights of people in Louisiana. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agreed, finding Louisiana’s scheme of permitting non-unanimous juries unconstitutional. It should be a no-brainer that if a law is found unconstitutional it would apply to those currently convicted by that law—apply not just into the future but also retroactively. Instead, Louisiana decided that it was the legislature's job to cure the injustice faced by those currently in prison.

In Louisiana, there are 1,067 people in prison for every 100,000 people, or about 1 in 100 people. One could assume from this data that Louisianans have an unusually extreme propensity for violating the law and require a robust system of confinement and control. However, if you look closer at Louisiana’s criminal legal system, some startling details emerge.

District Attorneys have operated a conveyor belt that filled prisons throughout the state with human beings. When DA’s cases are reviewed after conviction, more than 80% of the people on Louisiana’s death row, fated for execution by the state, have seen their death sentences reversed by a court—like Shareef Cousin who was sent to death row as a child only to be exonerated because the DA hid evidence, including locking away Shareef’s alibi witnesses during his trial.

In criminal cases overall, Louisiana has the largest wrongful conviction rate per capita in the United States—meaning that District Attorneys charge the wrong person for crimes in Louisiana more than anywhere else. District Attorneys in Louisiana have an extreme history of violating the rights of people facing criminal charges by hiding evidence in their cases, also known as a Brady violation.

And, as SB-218 attempts to address, District Attorneys were not even required to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving jurors unconvinced and without a unanimous vote for guilt, but resulting in a “guilty” verdict nonetheless.

People found to be innocent and reversals of death sentences do not happen because the District Attorneys realize that they were wrong and seek remedies. Instead, only after years of dogged fighting to expose their misdeeds and failures, do some people in prison regain their freedom. District Attorneys not only habitually get it wrong and achieve bad convictions but are bad actors in the process—gaining convictions by violating the law.

At the Promise of Justice Initiative, I lead a group of expert lawyers, researchers, and organizers who have dug through piles of records and fielded thousands of calls to figure out who is in prison without a legitimate conviction. In prison, there were people like Jermaine Hudson, who not only did not commit the crime but no crime was ever committed. The evidence against Jermaine was flimsy, which is why the jury was not unanimous. Jermaine served more than two decades in prison before we were able to get him home.

There is very little integrity in the prosecution of criminal cases in Louisiana and no accountability on the back end to own up to bad convictions. District Attorneys have enjoyed the ease of getting convictions with little effort and rail against the duty to review whether people’s rights were violated when old cases with serious claims of violations or problems come to them. District Attorneys in Louisiana do not hold freedom as a right.

In the United States, under federal and state constitutions, and as our common conscience and moral compasses tell us, the ability to strip freedom from Americans is supposed to be extremely difficult. However, removing people from society to be warehoused in prisons at a rate higher than almost anywhere in the world has been pretty easy in Louisiana. If a district attorney wants you in prison, good luck staying out.

Despite the low bar that DAs have been operating on to take freedom from people, they cry foul when having to work on the back end to demonstrate or prove that their convictions hold legal or constitutional legitimacy. They lead the public and the legislature to believe that their jobs are so incredibly hard that lawmakers should have mercy on them.

LDAA, instead of accepting that these convictions were no good and trying to find a remedy for those who have lost their freedom without the agreement of a jury, has become the most significant barrier to making things right.

During Duplessis’s committee hearing on the bill, LDAA Executive Director Zachary Daniels cried about the laundry list of hardships he and his colleagues would experience by having to prove guilt or offer plea deals. Against the recommendation of a myriad of people and institutions, including Republican and conservative interests, two-thirds of the public, the reasoning of the SCOTUS, and hundreds of impacted families, the bill failed on party lines.

LDAA has disproportionate power in the legislature. Lawmakers must recognize the farce that the group serves them. The LDAA wants everyone to believe that despite DAs routinely tricking and violating the law and winning convictions without achieving unanimous verdicts, all resulting in an unparalleled prison rate, they have no obligation to and cannot now muster up the time or will to do their jobs on the back end.

It is not the job of DAs to put anyone they can round up away to die in a prison and to pressure lawmakers to do unconscionable things simply because they don’t want to do extra work. Lawmakers represent the public, including people sitting inside of prison. Lawmakers must prioritize what is right over those who cry wolf.

Samantha Kennedy is the executive director of the Promise of Justice Initiative and has worked on death penalty cases for more than a decade. She is a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project

Correction: An earlier version of this story mistakenly referred to the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) rather than the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).


Read More

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.

Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.

U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less