Louisiana Voice

At the risk of appearing judgmental in a matter that is far from resolution, there’s a certain irony in the case of David Opperman, the West Feliciana Parish attorney and former prosecutor who now stands accused of sexually molesting a minor 17 years ago.

Opperman was INDICTED  last Thursday by a parish grand jury on two counts of aggravated rape and a single county of sexual battery after the attorney general’s office filed the indictment accusing him of assaulting a girl in West Feliciana Parish in 2003.

Attorney General Jeff Landry’s office became involved when 29^th JDC District Attorney Sam D’Aquilla was recused from the case. Opperman, who once served as D’Aquilla’s wife’s attorney, unsuccessfully opposed D’Aquilla for district attorney in 2014.

That was a bitter political dispute and only served to draw attention to a judicial district that has more problems that bubble far beneath the surface. In court filings, Opperman accuses D’Aquilla of having a sexual relationship with former coroner Laura Dejohn.

Dejohn, in turn, pleaded not guilty to malfeasance in office, criminal conspiracy and injuring public documents in June. She is accused of failing to keep records and for submitting fraudulent billing invoices for unlicensed medical services.

Opperman said D’Aquilla had a PERSONAL VENDETTA against him and was prosecuting him in an effort to keep him (Opperman) from investigating the Dejohn matter. He claims he was cooperating in a federal criminal investigation of D’Aquilla when he was accused in 2017 of molestation.

D’Aquilla’s wife considered divorcing him over his affair with Dejohn and she engaged the legal services of Opperman at the time, which would’ve compounded an already erupting animosity between the two lawyers.

It is important to remember that a district attorney has almost total control over grand jury proceedings because defense attorneys are not allowed to observe deliberations. The DA can pick and choose evidence that he wants to present and ignore that which he doesn’t want the grand jury to hear. Hence the oft-voiced expression that a DA can indict a ham sandwich if he so chooses.

Opperman, 58, who currently lives in St. Francisville, has served as a prosecutor in several venues, including an assistant district attorney for the 1^st Judicial District in Caddo Parish, the 19^th JDC in Baton Rouge and the 7^th JDC in Catahoula and Concordia parishes.

And it is his tenure in the 7^th JDC that serves as the irony in this sordid little story.

In 2009, Opperman was the PROSECUTING ATTORNEY in a Concordia Parish case in which a man received a life sentence after a two-day trial in which he was found guilty of one count of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated incest.

In that case, the defendant’s daughter was at a Baptist church in Natchez, Mississippi, attending a youth class with her siblings and father. At some point, it became apparent she had run away and when found, at first refused to return to the church.

When she was finally persuaded by church workers to return, she revealed that her father was having sex with her. At trial, she testified that her father began engaging in sex with her when she was about nine years old. She said the assaults occurred more than 100 times over the years until April 2009, when she reported him.

The defendant’s conviction was subsequently upheld on appeal.

But back to the 20^th JDC controversy.

Opperman may be a villain or he may be a victim. There is simply no way to determine at this point. Our constitution says that every accused person – without exception – is deemed innocent until proven guilty and that he/she is entitled to a legal defense.

Opperman is fortunate that he can afford expert legal counsel in defense attorney Jim Boren. Not all criminal defendants are lucky enough to afford such expensive representation. Many are assigned public defenders who are (a) underpaid, (b) overworked and (c) lacking in the financial resources to engage expert witnesses like their counterparts at the prosecution table who have virtually unlimited funds to pursue convictions.

Be that as it may, this issue has exploded in a volatile atmosphere, pitting two bitter political opponents against each other in a rancorous criminal matter. That instantly clouds the situation, leaving many unanswered questions as to the motives of the prosecution and the innocence or guilt of the accused.