When a majority of 9 to 3 has been found in a conservatorship trial that the proposed conservatee is not gravely disabled and does not need a conservator?

At the same time, there is little risk of an erroneous result when at least nine jurors have found the proposed conservatee not gravely disabled. As the United States Supreme Court acknowledged, a nine to three jury vote "raises no question of constitutional substance about either the integrity or the accuracy of the majority verdict[.]" (Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) 406 U.S. 356, 360, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 1623, 32 L.Ed.2d 152.) ⁹

Page 517

Finally, it is significant "a judicial determination at a conservatorship trial that a person does not then need a conservator does not bar a petition for one in the future if the individual upon whom a conservatorship is sought to be imposed undergoes future changes or is subject to familial or other changes which would require the imposition of a conservatorship for the protection of that person or of society." (Conservatorship of Davis v. Treharne (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 313, 330, 177 Cal.Rptr. 369; see also Conservatorship of Baber, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at pp. 549-550, 200 Cal.Rptr. 262.) This relaxation of double jeopardy principles in LPS Act conservatorship proceedings ensures needy individuals will receive the treatment to which they are entitled.

Conclusion