In all state and federal jurisdictions in the United States, joinder allows prosecutors to join multiple offenses against a criminal defendant. Joinder pervades the American criminal justice system, and some jurisdictions see joinder in more than half of their cases. Most states and the federal courts use a liberal joinder system where courts may join offenses regardless of their severity or punishment. These systems derive from judicial efficiency arguments, seeking to avoid unnecessary trials and striving to conserve time, money, and other resources. In a liberal joinder regime, the court may force a defendant to prepare for a trial in which she must simultaneously defend against a misdemeanor offense, like possession of marijuana, and a capital felony offense with a potential death sentence—even though the two charges may require completely different defense strategies. Jurisdictions should no longer broadly protect the joinder of all types of offenses in the name of judicial efficiency or juridical discretion. Instead, jurisdictions should categorically protect defendants charged with capital offenses from the potentially prejudicial nature of joinder, as Louisiana has for nearly a century. Born from the state’s unique judicial history, Louisiana’s joinder regime restricts joinder to those offenses which are triable by the same “mode of trial,” a phrase that has undergone statutory interpretation, constitutional examination, and judicial scrutiny. Louisiana offers its criminal defendants a structural, procedural protection by prohibiting the joinder of capital offenses with noncapital offenses. Although other scholars have published articles and studies criticizing joinder regimes, pointing out the ways in which offenses’ joinder may prejudice defendants, or presenting data to show prejudice’s existence in practice, none have yet suggested—as this Article does—that jurisdictions revise their joinder regimes to prohibit the joinder of capital and noncapital offenses. If jurisdictions revised their joinder schemes in this way, they could maintain liberal joinder regimes for the most common criminal cases, where joinder is most efficient, without continuing to hinder those defendants who face the most serious consequences and the highest stakes during their trials. This Article first discusses the history and current status of joinder in most jurisdictions, followed by the history and current status of joinder in Louisiana. It then explains capital-offense joinder in Louisiana and how it differs from other jurisdictions in the United States. The Article further analyzes the arguments for liberal joinder and critiques them by presenting research in the field, practical considerations, and historical arguments. The Article concludes by urging other jurisdictions, particularly those with capital sentencing capabilities or capital offense punishments, to amend their joinder provisions to prevent the joinder of capital offenses with noncapital offenses. If jurisdictions revised their joinder schemes in this way, they could maintain liberal joinder regimes for the most common criminal cases, where joinder is most efficient, without continuing to hinder those defendants who face the most serious consequences and the highest stakes during their trials.

在美国的所有州和联邦司法管辖区，合并允许检察官合并针对刑事被告的多项罪行。在美国刑事司法系统中普遍存在并案，一些司法管辖区在其一半以上的案件中都采用了并案。大多数州和联邦法院使用自由合并制度，法院可以合并犯罪，无论其严重程度或惩罚如何。这些系统源于司法效率论点，旨在避免不必要的审判并努力节省时间、金钱和其他资源。在自由合并制度中，法院可能会强迫被告准备审判，在审判中她必须同时为轻罪辩护，例如持有大麻，以及可能判处死刑的重罪——尽管这两项指控可能需要完全不同的辩护策略。司法管辖区不应再以司法效率或司法自由裁量权的名义广泛保护所有类型的罪行的合并。相反，正如路易斯安那州近一个世纪以来那样，司法管辖区应明确保护被指控犯有死罪的被告免受合并的潜在不利性质。由于该州独特的司法历史，路易斯安那州的合并制度将合并限制在可通过相同“审判模式”审判的罪行中，这一短语已经过法定解释、宪法审查和司法审查。路易斯安那州为其刑事被告提供结构性、通过禁止将死罪与非死罪合并来保护程序。尽管其他学者发表文章和研究批评并入制度，指出罪行的并入可能对被告造成偏见的方式，或提供数据表明偏见在实践中存在，但没有人像本文那样建议司法管辖区修改其并入禁止合并死罪和非死罪的制度。如果司法管辖区以这种方式修改他们的合并计划，他们可以在最常见的刑事案件中保持自由合并制度，因为合并是最有效的，而不会继续阻碍那些在审判过程中面临最严重后果和最高风险的被告。本文首先讨论了大多数司法管辖区合并合并的历史和现状，然后是路易斯安那州合并合并的历史和现状。然后解释了路易斯安那州的死罪合并，以及它与美国其他司法管辖区的不同之处。文章进一步分析了自由合并的论据，并通过介绍该领域的研究、实践考虑和历史论据来对其进行批评。该条最后敦促其他司法管辖区，特别是具有死刑判决能力或死刑处罚能力的司法管辖区，修改其并列条款，以防止将死罪与非死罪并列。如果司法管辖区以这种方式修改他们的合并计划，他们可以为最常见的刑事案件维持自由合并制度，