Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2026

Abstract

In 1997, Louisiana voters amended the state constitution to mandate that capital juries be instructed on the governor’s power to commute life and death sentences. This amendment, urged by the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, followed a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that found an earlier clemency instruction violated the state constitution.     The instruction was fundamentally false. Louisiana governors, it turns out, lacked the unilateral authority to commute sentences; such actions require a favorable vote from the Parole Board. This reality became starkly clear in 2023, when the clemency petitions of fifty-six condemned prisoners—many sentenced by juries affirmatively given this instruction—were terminated by the Attorney General (now Governor). This Article observes that the clemency instruction unconstitutionally misled capital juries, undermined due process, violated the principle of truth in sentencing, and ultimately denied justice to defendants who were promised a future remedy that did not exist.   When Louisiana citizens voted to amend the constitution, they voted in favor of transparency, and they voted for truth in sentencing. Little did they know that their vote was a lie and the concept was a sham. When the Governor's power of clemency was most salient, it was foreclosed. Jurors in capital cases in Louisiana have been affirmatively misled.

Publication Title

Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law

Volume

27

Issue

2

First Page

95

Download

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS