Louisiana Senate Bill SB97

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/9/26
• Report Pass: 3/17/26
• Engrossed: 3/24/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 5/6/26
• Refer: 5/7/26
• Report Pass: 5/11/26

Caption

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Constitutional amendment to require the prosecutor's consent for a defendant to waive his right to a trial by jury. (2/3 - CA13s1(A))

Summary

SB 97 proposes a constitutional amendment to change how a criminal defendant may waive the right to a jury trial in Louisiana. Under current law, a defendant in a noncapital felony case may waive a jury trial if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and made at least 45 days before trial. The bill would add a new requirement that the prosecuting authority must give written consent before the waiver can take effect. The measure would amend Article I, Section 17(A) of the Louisiana Constitution and place the question before voters at the statewide election on April 17, 2027. The ballot language would ask whether the Constitution should be changed so that the prosecutor must consent in writing before a defendant may waive a jury trial.

Impact

If approved by voters, SB 97 would narrow a defendant’s ability to elect a bench trial in noncapital criminal cases by giving prosecutors a veto over jury-trial waivers. It would alter constitutional criminal procedure rather than ordinary statute, directly affecting defendants, defense counsel, prosecutors, and trial courts by making jury-trial waiver contingent on prosecutorial approval in addition to the defendant’s informed consent.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests the bill advanced with meaningful support but not unanimity. The Senate passed SB 97 on final passage by a 26-11 vote, indicating a clear majority in favor while also showing a substantial minority opposed. No committee transcript is available here, so the recorded vote is the main indicator of sentiment.

Contention

The central point of contention is whether a prosecutor should have the power to block a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial. Supporters likely view the change as preserving the jury system and ensuring that jury trials remain the default in serious criminal cases, while opponents may see it as limiting defendant autonomy and giving the state too much control over trial format. The debate appears to turn on balancing prosecutorial discretion and the defendant’s constitutional right to choose the mode of trial.