Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.
Argument: California law allowing holdout jurors to be dismissed affects matters of exceptional importance, and this court should grant en banc review to ensure that the law was not misapplied. Holdout jurors play an essential role in the criminal justice process. California defendants are entitled to juries that can decide their cases independently and conscientiously. California defendants have a right to an appellate system that functions as the California Constitution and AEDPA intended. The panel's decision eliminates one of the few paths to federal review that AEDPA preserves for state-court defendants. The panel's treatment of appellate court factfinding is inconsistent with this court's prior practice.
Brief of Amici Curiae Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and 32 Other Associations of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana).
Argument: This Court should resolve the inconsistent application of McDonough resulting from a well-established circuit split to ensure criminal defendants receive strong and uniform protections against juror bias. This Court has never clarified McDonough’s application in criminal cases. Courts applying the McDonough test for juror bias in the criminal context have largely ignored the constitutional divide between criminal and civil defendants. Courts’ application of McDonough ignores these nuances, resulting in disparate and inadequate protections for criminal defendants. The Louisiana Supreme Court wrongly deprived Mr. Lacaze of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Against the backdrop of criminal juries’ remarkable power and unique responsibilities, McDonough requires that a new trial be granted when (1) a juror fails, intentionally or unintentionally, to answer honestly a material question on voir dire; and (2) the truthful answer provides a basis upon which a reasonable judge would have struck the juror for cause. In a system where criminal defendants face the most extreme penalties available under the law, allegations of jurors’ bias must be thoroughly scrutinized to ensure they are impartially carrying out their grave responsibility: to fairly and accurately assess an accused’s guilt or innocence.