Regular session ends with dramatic moment

With three minutes left in the 2016 regular session, a life-and-death drama was unfolding on the Senate floor. Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, started filibustering the bipartisan criminal justice compromise with the House that would allow most lifers sentenced as juveniles a chance for parole after serving 30 years.
The measure passed both chambers easily and the Senate had only to vote on the compromise portion which had been agreed to by Senate and House conferees, various juvenile justice groups and the Louisiana District Attorney’s Association.
Clearly angry, Rep. Sherman Mack, R-Albany, author of the House Bill 264 labeled Petersen’s move “irresponsible. . .inconsiderate….disrespectful.”
“I’m not sure that we need that,” Peterson said of a technical amendment to the title of the bill. “But let me tell you about amendment number four,” she said, continuing her delaying tactics. Time ran out, the session ended and the bill was dead.
She suggested the Senate could take up the matter during the coming special session. “We’ve got a lot of time to look at all of this in special session. But if not this year maybe we can look at it next year, or the year after.”
Mack countered: “Sen. Peterson has been in the Legislature to know that is not possible,” referring to rules that prohibit specials from considering anything not outlined by the governor.
Peterson’s actions were an apparent retaliation for the House’s handling of the state’s construction bill, House Bill 2, which languished for months before getting to the Senate and then fatally stalled in the House in the final hours of the session.
HB264 in was in response to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case, Montgomery v. Louisiana, where the court found juveniles sentenced to life without parole prior to 2012 must be given a meaningful chance for parole.
“She is opening the door to I don’t know how many lawsuits,” Mack charged. “It shows a blatant disregard for those sentenced as juveniles who may be reformed after 30 years.”
Mack said Peterson’s action will cost already overburdened public defenders and district attorneys in the state millions of dollars in court costs.
In an interview following the end of the session, Peterson said she was not sure what prisoners serving life sentences from when they were juveniles will do.
In an emailed statement Tuesday, Peterson said she didn’t support the amended version of the bill, and preferred an amendment to prescribe a 25-year period before prisoners get a chance for parole. However, Senate records show she voted for the Senate version of the bill, which did not include the 25-year provision.
The House voted 82-3 Monday in favor of the conference committee report before it came to the Senate. Intense negotiations between juvenile advocates and district attorneys resulted in a compromise over the contentious issue of how long a lifer would have to serve before getting a hearing. That compromise was finalized only hours before it came back to the Senate.
For a first-degree murder charge only, a juvenile would still have received life in prison without parole if the judge and prosecutor so desired. The decision would have been made at the sentencing hearing after the jury convicts the juvenile of the crime.
“(No parole) is for the worst of the worst,” said E. Pete Adams with the District Attorney’s Association.
For crimes other than first-degree murder, the maximum time a juvenile would have had to serve before getting a chance for a parole hearing is 30 years.
That time frame would have applied to all cases prior to 2012 to satisfy requirements of the Supreme Court decision. In addition, the time frame would also apply from 2012 into the future to avoid the potential costs of defending the constitutionality of the state’s laws each time a juvenile is sentenced to life.