Senate committee advances bill to create review panel for non‑unanimous jury convictions after heated debate

Senate Committee on Judiciary B members voted 4–3 April 14 to report SB 215, a bill sponsored by Senator McMath that would create a five‑member review panel to consider filings from people convicted by non‑unanimous juries.

The sponsor and proponents said the panel would offer a targeted, legal review of older non‑unanimous convictions without automatically entailing new trials. Senator McMath told the committee the panel is intended to "take a second look" at cases where records suggest verdict irregularities and to balance relief with preserving valid convictions. Zach Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, described the measure as a structured, deliberate approach and said the panel would perform a "cold record review," limiting consideration to the court record at the time of conviction.

The bill would place the panel under the authority of the state's Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole, and would appoint five retired justice‑system professionals — three retired judges, a retired district attorney and an appointee from the state public defender's office. Daniels said the measure would require unanimous agreement of the five to grant relief, set a one‑year filing window from the bill's effective date, and include a three‑year sunset for the panel to conclude hearings. He warned the committee that legislative counsel from the governor's office may later request clarifying language to address constitutional questions about commutation or clemency.

Opponents — including the Promise of Justice Initiative, defense attorneys and people who said they were wrongfully convicted — urged deferral. "This bill ain't gonna be no solution," testified Herman Evans, who said he "spent 37 years in prison for a crime I didn't commit," and urged the committee to pull the measure. Advocates said the proposal relies on a process that could leave many people without meaningful relief, pointing to the history of non‑unanimous juries and arguing that resentencing frameworks or new trials are preferable for many cases.

Fiscal concerns also featured in the hearing. Witnesses cited a Legislative Auditor study that estimated a properly staffed review operation could cost between about $833,000 and $1,840,000 annually; Daniels told the committee an earlier review had estimated a broader range of roughly $800,000 to over $2,000,000. Advocates argued that the state should consider whether those resources would be better spent on resentencing or strengthening existing review mechanisms.

In response to questions from Senator DuPlessis, Daniels said the bill is intended to allow review of the full trial court record as it existed at the time of filing, not to admit new witness affidavits or newly discovered evidence beyond the cold record. He also said district attorneys would be allowed to respond to filings, contact victims for input and present memoranda opposing relief. Daniels acknowledged the bill may need additional language to address how commutation or clemency would operate where release from life sentences is implicated.

After prolonged debate and multiple rounds of public testimony that included legal scholars, advocacy organizations and formerly incarcerated people, Senator Talbot moved to report SB 215 favorably. Senator DuPlessis objected and the committee proceeded to a roll‑call vote. The tally was 4 ayes and 3 nays; the chair cast the decisive vote and the committee reported SB 215 favorably.

What happens next: The bill moves to the Senate floor and may be amended further in the process; sponsors said they expect additional conversations with the governor's office and stakeholders about constitutional language and fiscal implications.