The "Burning Bush" Editorial
THE LOUISIANA 10-2 BILL OF ATTAINDER ARGUMENT
What the Four Federal Filings Say
All four federal filings are part of the same federal action: Case No. 2:24-cv-00686, Section D(2), involving Reverend Errol Victor Sr. and the constitutional challenge being advanced by All The Way Right Ministries.
These filings are not separate theories. Together, they present one constitutional challenge concerning people who remain imprisoned under Louisiana’s former non-unanimous jury system.
1. Pre-Conviction Application in Support of Habeas Corpus Challenges the legality of the continuing custody and seeks immediate release or an evidentiary hearing.
2. Memorandum of Law Presents Supplies the constitutional foundation for the position that Louisiana legislation gave punitive legal effect to 9–3, 10–2, and 11–1 jury returns even though the constitutionally required jury had not unanimously adjudicated guilt.
3. Motion to Certify Class Action Seeks to extend the challenge beyond Reverend Victor individually to the larger class allegedly suffering the same constitutional injury.
4. Motion to Supplement Judicial Notice Supplies the historical and governmental context connecting legislative creation of the system, judicial enforcement, and continued Executive Branch imprisonment.
THE THREE BRANCHES - ONE CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
Reverend Errol Victor Sr.’s constitutional position connects all three branches of Louisiana government.
THE LEGISLATURE created the mechanism that allowed 9–3, 10–2, and 11–1 jury returns to carry the legal consequence of guilt and punishment.
THE JUDICIARY implemented that mechanism by accepting those divided jury returns, entering judgments, and imposing sentences.
THE EXECUTIVE continues the punishment by maintaining custody and imprisonment under those judgments.
The Bill of Attainder argument keeps the constitutional focus on the Legislature.
The Legislature cannot manufacture the missing verdict.
The Legislature cannot pronounce the legal equivalent of guilt when the constitutionally required jury did not unanimously make that determination.
The theory therefore asks whether later judicial enforcement and continuing Executive imprisonment can cure an original constitutional deficiency in the legislative mechanism.
The Legislature created the mechanism.
The Judiciary implemented the mechanism.
The Executive continues the punishment.
The Constitutional Theory in its Srongest Form
The constitutional problem begins with punishment.
Louisiana’s Legislature authorized a non-unanimous jury return to have the legal effect of guilt and thereby authorized imprisonment.
But under Ramos v. Louisiana, a criminal jury must unanimously determine guilt.
If twelve jurors were empaneled and only ten voted guilty, the constitutionally required jury had not unanimously adjudicated guilt.
Yet Louisiana legislation supplied the missing legal consequence: the divided return was treated as guilt, judgment was entered, and punishment followed.
That punishment is not theoretical. It is imprisonment.
United States v. Brown explains that the Bill of Attainder prohibition is aimed at legislative punishment and at preventing legislatures from exercising the judicial function.
Our theory therefore asks:
If the constitutional jury did not supply the determination of guilt, could the Legislature constitutionally supply the legal determination that made imprisonment possible?
If not, then subsequent judicial enforcement and continued Executive Branch imprisonment cannot cure the original constitutional defect.
SPECIFICITY, PUNISHMENT & THE ASCERTAINABLE CLASS
The Bill of Attainder position identifies an ascertainable class:
People whom Louisiana authorized to be convicted and punished through non-unanimous jury returns even though their juries did not unanimously adjudicate them guilty.
The alleged constitutional injury is common to the class: legislation gave punitive legal effect to a jury return that lacked the unanimity constitutionally necessary for conviction.
Punishment is central to the argument.
The consequence was not merely a procedural irregularity. The consequence was conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and in many cases decades of lost liberty.
Louisiana’s racial history provides important historical context concerning why the non-unanimous jury mechanism existed and whom it affected.
But the constitutional class does not depend entirely upon proving racial motive.
The class can also be identified directly through the challenged mechanism itself:
persons still suffering punishment because Louisiana law treated a non-unanimous jury return as the legal equivalent of a unanimous determination of guilt