Louisiana Voice

A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter.

–Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications, Code of Judicial Conduct

The Louisiana Supreme Court heard ARGUMENTS yesterday in the case of convicted killer Reginald Reddick but far more than Reddick’s case is at stake in the court’s eventual decision.

Call me jaded, but I would be surprised, yea stunned, if there were not some ex parte communications between state district attorneys and certain justices on the Supreme Court.

The reason I feel this way is obvious: Depending on the court’s ruling, as many as 1500 prisoners at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, 80 percent of whom are black and who, like Redick, were convicted by split jury verdicts, could be eligible for re-trial.

Imagine the logistics involved in state district courts in 64 parishes having to suddenly schedule new trials for 1500 defendants – an average of 23 per parish – in a system already hopelessly backlogged with pending cases.

Reddick’s case centers around whether or not a 2020 US Supreme Court ruling striking down split verdicts should be retroactive.

Louisiana and Oregon were the last states in which a person could be convicted in a non-capital felony case by a vote of 10 of 12 jurors. Capital cases have always required a unanimous verdict but as late as 1973, Louisiana allowed 9-3 split verdicts. That was changed at the state constitution convention that year to 10-2.

The split verdicts were allowed as a means of maintaining “the supremacy of the white race” by basically negating the presence of blacks on juries and as an easier route to conviction of black defendants who the state would incarcerate and then lease out to private companies for cheap labor.

But in 2018, Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring unanimous verdicts in jury trials for cases initiated on Jan. 1, 2019, or later.

The US Supreme Court, ruling in the Jefferson Parish case of Ramos v. Louisiana two years ago, said that non-unanimous verdicts were unconstitutional. The court mandated new trials for defendants with split-jury verdicts who were in the appeal process but did not apply to those who had exhausted their appeals.

In another case, Edwards v. Vannoy, the US Supreme Court ruled against making those cases retroactive and now Reddick is hoping the Louisiana Supreme Court will do what the US court would not.

Fat chance.

Not to trivialize the importance of the potential Reddick ruling, it’s like purchasing a car on Friday only to learn that the dealer begins offering a huge rebate for the same vehicle on the following Monday. It’s not fair, but in reality, there’s not much the buyer can do.

There was a time when I made a purchase at Sears only to see the product go on sale the following week. That really happened to me back in the ‘70s and I promptly returned the item for a full refund and then turned around and purchased it at the sale price. It was a practice approved by Sears at the time.

I am not suggesting that Reddick is innocent. That was never my argument. It’s about the application of the law to all defendants on a fair and equal basis.

And in his case, you might expect that Attorney General Jeff Landry, that towering champion of human rights – NOT – would be vocal in his opposition to applying the law retroactively.

And you’d be correct.

Landry has already come out with guns blazing. Or at least one of his hired hands has. Assistant AG Shae McPhee sniffed, “At the time, Mr. Reddick…was given a trial and his due process that was due under the constitution at the time. To allow him to continually relitigate the same issue eats up the resources of the state.”

Ah. There you have it. It all comes down to a question of money. The state would dodge its responsibility in the name of avoiding inconvenience and expense.

It’s the same logic prosecutors apply in their fight to prohibit DNA testing for those who insist they were wrongly convicted of crimes. They were convicted before the general application of DNA evidence, so why should they get a new trial now? They may have been convicted because of the failure to provide exculpatory evidence, but that was the practice at the time (even though it was illegal), so why should they get a do-over?

Never mind the application of basic human rights. It’s just too damn inconvenient to prosecutors and the justice system to oblige them with a fair verdict. Scheduling these retrials will simply overload the system.

That’s the argument and if you think one or more prosecutors haven’t committed ex parte communications through back door channels to make that fact known to the justices, then I have some lovely timeshare beachfront property in Dry Prong to offer you at a good price.

If you aren’t yet convinced that the Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling striking down Roe v. Wade is not a precursor of more restrictive crackdowns on voter rights, education, housing, LGBTQ rights, civil rights, and citizens’ rights in general, then you just haven’t been paying attention.

Hell, they’re even coming after a woman’s basic right to birth control. Don’t believe me? Go HERE, HERE, HERE,HERE, HERE, HERE, and  HERE.

The validity of the threat to contraception was underscored by Sen. Ted “Cancun” Cruz’s DENIAL (Do you actually trust anything he says?).

I don’t want to sound like some hysterical conspiracy nut, but all the indications of the Repugnantcans’ end game are right there in front of us and for those who can connect the dots, the evidence is there, in boldface black and white. Just look at the laws tightening voting rights, public education curricula, LGBTQ rights, etc.

The oppressive actions of right-wing Repugnantcans are advances not-so-slowly chipping away at the rights of free Americans just as happened in Nazi Germany 80 years ago.

That’s a brash claim but one that his historically accurate. One charismatic “leader” who echoes the injustices, real or imagined, heaped upon the uneducated masses is all it takes to start such a movement. Not that Donald Trump is charismatic in any sense – just listen to his speeches at any of his rallies – but he has struck a chord with the disillusioned millions who feel the government has not responded to their needs and somehow think he actually cares about their daily struggles.

The abolishment of Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (which has received far less attention), are about more than a woman’s right to an abortion; it’s a power grab, plain and simple.

When no exception is made for rape, incest, or for fetuses that are revealed to be hopelessly deformed, then the argument has gone far beyond right to life. In fact, the mother’s right to life in dangerous pregnancies is given no consideration by states passing repressive anti-abortion laws.

Nor is there any consistency in this spate of state laws Repugnantcan legislators are falling all over each other to enact.

Take Florida and Texas for examples. In those states, a 12-year-old girl is considered too immature to learn about slavery or other sensitive subjects like say, birth control, in a classroom environment but if she becomes pregnant by an uncle, a sibling, a cousin, or anyone else, she must carry the baby to term. Of course, after that she’s on her own; don’t bother applying for medical aid or any other type of state assistance.

When you get right down to it, there’s no one capable of more extreme cruelty than those God-fearing, family-values Repugnantcans who insist on imposing their warped values on others but are quick to exempt themselves from the rules when those rules are inconvenient – especially when a Repugnantcan’s MISTRESS turns up pregnant something that’s already happened –  Go HERE, HERE (didn’t know that about Trump, did-ya?), HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and  HERE and it’ll happen again, guaranteed.

States are beginning to consider laws making a felony offense to have an abortion for any reason. Never mind the fact that Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the nation; the governor is considering outlawing contraception in any form. In Texas, they’ve placed bounties on pregnant women who seek an abortion by offering monetary awards to anyone who reports a woman for having an abortion or anyone, including a physician, who gives advice on such a procedure. If that’s not turning neighbor against neighbor reminiscent of what’s done in totalitarian nations, then I have to say there’s no hope for society. We’ve become a herd of 300,000 sheep.

Right here in Louisiana, a legislator is pushing a bill that would charge a woman receiving an abortion with MURDER.

Next thing you know, the Repugnantcans will call for the enacting of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 into law:

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29:

²⁸ If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exodus 22:16-17:

¹⁶If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. ¹⁷If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.”

Like those biblical verses, Repugnantcans think of women as property. Never forget that. And there’s little evidence to deny that they feel the same way about the rest of us.

And remember this above everything else: It’s the Repugnantcans who profess to be the party that wants government out of our lives.

There’s an old axion that says justice delayed is justice denied and in the case of a number of citizens of Evangeline Parish, the expression has never been more accurate.

A federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit against the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Ville Platte Police Department after ruling that plaintiffs waited past the prescription date to file their action, thus shielding law enforcement from any responsibility for blatant violations of basic civil rights.

First, a little background:

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department in 2016 delivered a REPORT that concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that both the Ville Platte, Louisiana Police Department (VPPD) and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office (EPSO) “engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct” that dates back “as far as anyone (at either department) can remember.”

The 17-page report went on to say, “Both VPPD and EPSO have arrested and held people in jail—without obtaining a warrant and without probable cause—in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  We have additional concerns that these unconstitutional holds have led to coerced confessions and improper criminal convictions. These findings reflect the results of an investigation into both agencies, which have engaged in nearly identical practices within overlapping jurisdictional boundaries.”

The arrests, called “investigative holds,” were used routinely by both VPPD and EPSO as a part of their criminal investigations during which threats of continued wrongful incarceration were employed to induce arrestees to provide information. Authorities also threatened their family members and potential witnesses, the report said.

“The arrests include[d] individuals suspected (without sufficient evidence) of committing crimes, as well as their family members and potential witnesses,” it said.

Individuals improperly arrested were:

• Strip-searched;
• Placed in holding cells without beds, toilets, or showers;
• Denied communication with family members and loved ones;
• Commonly detained for seventy-two hours or more without being provided an opportunity to contest their arrest and detention;
• Held and questioned until they either provide information or the law enforcement agency determines that they do not have information related to a crime.

The report further said there were “concerns that some people may have confessed to crimes or provided information sought by EPSO and VPPD detectives, apparently to end this secret and indefinite confinement.”

It said that the practice is “routine” and that both agencies acknowledged that they used holds to investigate criminal activity for as long as anyone at the agency can remember.

The Justice Department concluded that it found “reasonable cause to believe that both EPSO and VPPD engage[d] in a pattern or practice of violating the Fourth Amendment by arresting and detaining individuals without probable cause.  Moreover, we have serious concerns that these agencies use holds to obtain coerced statements that taint the criminal convictions of the unlawfully detained individuals.

“This pattern or practice is widespread and longstanding throughout both agencies. Between January 2012 and December 2014, EPSO—an agency with four detectives that polices a jurisdiction populated by only 33,000 residents—listed “investigative hold” as the sole basis for over 200 arrests. During the same time period, VPPD arrested individuals on investigative holds more than 700 times while policing a jurisdiction of only 7,300 residents (10 percent of the city’s entire population).”

Detectives from both agencies violated individuals’ Fourth Amendment when, “lacking probable cause, they instructed officers to ‘pick up’ an individual and ‘bring him in’ for questioning rather than making an ‘arrest,’” the report said. “This practice subjects individuals to arrest and detention without cause and erodes the community trust that is critical to effective law enforcement in Evangeline Parish and Ville Platte.”

The investigative holds are made “without a warrant, without any showing that the testimony is essential and that obtaining it via subpoena is impracticable, and without any attempt to obtain prior judicial approval,” the report says.

“EPSO and VPPD officers have used unlawful investigative holds as a regular part of criminal investigations for more than two decades. Most holds operate as follows:

• When a detective at either agency wants to question someone in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation, the detective instructs a patrol officer to find that individual in the community and bring him or her in for questioning.
• The patrol officer commands the individual to ride in a patrol vehicle to either the City or Parish jail, where pursuant to the jail’s standard procedures, jail personnel strip-search the individual and place him or her in a holding cell (sometimes referred to as “the bullpen” at the Parish Jail) until a detective is available to conduct questioning.
• At the City Jail, there are two holding cells; both are equipped with a hard metal bench, and nothing else. Neither holding cell at the City Jail has a mattress, running water, shower, or toilet in the cell.
• The Parish Jail is similar; the “bullpen” is equipped with only a long metal bench, and the walls are made of metal grating.  EPSO detectives and deputies refer to the process of detaining a person in the “bullpen” for questioning as “putting them on ice.”
• Investigative holds initiated by VPPD often last for seventy-two hours—and sometimes significantly longer—forcing detainees to spend multiple nights sleeping on a concrete floor or metal bench.  Indeed, VPPD’s booking logs indicate that, from 2012-2014, several dozen investigative holds extended for at least a full week. During this time, VPPD exerts control over the detainees’ liberty: The detained person is not permitted to make phone calls to let family or employers know where they are, and have access to bathrooms and showers only when taken into the jail’s general population area.
• Similarly, EPSO’s investigative holds often last for three full days. During that time, detainees are forced to sleep on the Parish Jail’s concrete floor. One EPSO deputy reported that he saw someone held without a warrant or a probable cause determination for more than six days.
• As with VPPD, EPSO also controls the detainee’s liberty. EPSO does not permit detainees who are “on hold” to make phone calls to let family or employers know their whereabouts. Indeed, we were told that certain detectives have threatened EPSO jail officers (referred to as “jailers” in the Parish Jail) with retaliation if the officers allowed detainees to make phone calls. One EPSO jail officer described an incident in which an EPSO detective reprimanded him after the jail officer provided toothpaste and other personal supplies to a person locked in the holding cell.

In an ominous warning of the perils of investigative holds, the report said, “The willingness of officers in both agencies to arrest and detain individuals who are merely possible witnesses in criminal investigations means that literally anyone in Evangeline Parish or Ville Platte could be arrested and placed ‘on hold’ at any time.”

As any observer might suspect, a class-action lawsuit was filed, naming as defendants the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Ville Platte Police Department, the Parish of Evangeline and the City of Ville Platte.

The 21-page lawsuit was filed in federal district court’s Western District in Lafayette.

Represented by New York attorney Frank B. Schirripa, the lawsuit claimed the aforementioned actions by municipal police officers and sheriff’s deputies and sought damages and immediate cessation of the practice of investigative holds.

But the lawsuit was quickly dismissed by the presiding judge who ruled that plaintiffs had waited too late to file their lawsuit.

“We thought that the Justice Department’s report would have interrupted prescription, but the judge said no,” said Schirripa. “The judge said the plaintiffs knew they were detained and/or arrested, so the clock started with their being picked up by authorities. Unfortunately, the clock did not start over with the issuance of the Justice Department’s report.”

One might reasonably believe that the clock would re-start with the official revelation that the plaintiffs had been subjected to illegal treatment. One might also reasonably believe that there was a difference between being picked up for questioning and officially learning from the feds that the action was blatantly illegal.

But like those wrongly convicted and who served lengthy prison terms before being exonerated and subsequently denied monetary awards, the victims of the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Ville Platte Police Department are barred from recovery.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

A petition for post-conviction relief in the case of Christopher Holder is currently pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal that addresses both the split-verdict held unconstitutional in the Evangelisto Ramos v. Louisiana case and the manner in which jury selection was carried out in Holder’s 26^th Judicial District trial in 2014.

Neither the petition for post-conviction relief nor the report of handwriting expert Peggy Walla is part of the appeal process in the matter, but the split-verdict and jury venire questions certainly are.

Shreveport attorney A. M. “Marty” Stroud, III filed the petition which also claims that Holder had ineffective legal counsel at his trial and that there was no opportunity for Holder’s expert witness to testify at trial as to Holder’s mental state brought on by a host of prescription medication he had been taking for years at doctors’ orders.

Stroud gained national attention eight years ago when he successfully campaigned to free a man whom he had sent to death row some 30 years before.

Glenn Ford, dying of lung cancer, was exonerated in 2014 after nearly 30 years on death row, sent there by Stroud. Stroud even wrote a newspaper op-ed apologizing for his role in Ford’s conviction but a judge denied Ford restitution for his years of wrongful incarceration.

Now Stroud is working on behalf of Holder to combat a legal system that appears to be deeply flawed because of Holder’s 10-2 split jury conviction of second degree of his murder in 2012 and of the way the jury venire was set in the 26^th JDC, which comprises the parishes of Bossier and Webster.

Louisiana and Oregon were the last holdouts in states that still recognized split-jury verdicts but that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 20, 2020. Now, the Louisiana Supreme Court must decide if the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision should be retroactive to some 1500 prisoners in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, including Holder, who were similarly convicted.

Stroud noted that state law requires a jury pool of no fewer than 250 PETIT JURORS from which the trial jury will be chosen but in Holder’s case, there were only 124 and investigations have indicated many potential jurors were excused without having ever been informed their names were chosen for the general venire. “The venire was not selected in accordance with applicable law,” Stroud wrote in his petition.

Ineffective legal counsel was claimed by Stroud, who noted, “there was no objection to the jury venire.”

“The trial court erred in finding that the jury venires were properly selected in accordance with state law and the Constitution of the United States,” he said, adding, “There was no certification in this case attesting to the selection of the general and petit jury venire lists.

Dr. Gary Meas was scheduled to testify as to Holder’s mental state but had a conflict on the trial date and the court refused to reschedule the trial, which meant he was unable to testify even though included with his testimony “would have been his insanity evaluation addendum and assertion and a spread sheet showing that the numerous drugs had black box warnings not to administer these drugs to children under the age of 18 and subsequently changed to the age of 26 per directive of the Food and Drug Administration,” none of which evidence ever reached the jury.

Strout also argues that the 10-2 verdict convicting Holder “violated the uniformity requirement of the Sixth Amendment and that the trial court erred in holding that Ramos was not to be retroactively applied.

Apparently, the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office in Gonzales is a restricted area.

Especially if you’re an unknown who happens to be carrying a camera.

Never mind that the sheriff’s office, the accompanying grounds and sidewalks and the Ascension Parish Courthouse are all public property. (The only places where cameras are not allowed are the courtrooms themselves and the clerk of court’s office – clerks of court got themselves exempted a few years back from the public records law which allows the free copying of public records because they like to hit you for a dollar a page.)

But back to our story about the sheriff’s office.

There’s this YouTube platform called We the People University operated by a former police officer and former deputy sheriff named Abiyah Israel, who sends crews out across the country to show how law enforcement officers routinely violate citizens’ rights by enforcing non-existent laws.

The undated video, taken from the vantage point of the reporter, was shot outside the office of Sheriff Bobby Webre in Gonzales and even though the reporter is obviously violating no law or ordinance, the presence of his camera apparently spooked officers who confronted him.

You can watch the full video HERE.

While initially met by only three officers of the Gonzales Police Department, their paranoia soon saw their number grow to about half-a-dozen fully uniformed officers demanding to know the reporter’s name and business – though he was under no legal obligation to provide any of that information since no laws had been broken.

There was no immediate explanation of why municipal police were guarding a parish sheriff’s office.

One officer, with the nametag T. Berkholz on his uniform shirt, demanded that the reporter “step off the property” as another, J.B. Dunaway, looked on.

“Step off the property?” the reporter repeated. “Is that a lawful order?”

“Yes, that is a lawful order,” Berkholz replied, repeating his order – even though it was not by any means a “lawful order.”

When the reporter attempted to get further clarification as to what was and what was not public property, Berkholz said, “I’m not gonna answer any more questions.” He then asked if the visitor had any identification.

“What do I need an ID for?” he was asked. “What law have I broken?”

Dunaway spoke for the first time then, saying, “I can tell you right now, this is not usual.”

“It may not be usual,” he was told, “but you’d better start getting used to it because people are going to start doing this more and more often. You’ve gotta learn you can’t be pushing people around like this.”

“What’s your point?” Dunaway asked and other officers began gathering, one of whom was videoing the reporter. Dunaway, meanwhile, adjusted his sunglasses.

“Transparency, accountability,” was the immediate response.

Another city officer, L. Stromberg, along with Berkholz began shouting and getting into the reporter’s face in an apparent effort to intimidate him. “Are you from Louisiana?” asked Stromberg – as if that was even relevant.

“I don’t answer questions,” the reporter said.

“There’s a law in Louisiana that says you have to identify yourself,” Stromberg said. There is no such law.

More officers and/or deputies began arriving, though no one seemed really sure what to do about this upstart in their midst. Mostly they just milled around, some with their thumbs in their multi-functional belts.

More sunglasses adjustments by officer C. Cannon. It seems they adjust their sunglasses a lot, much like Lt. Hortatio Caine on CSI Miami.

Eventually, the officers, after consulting with unidentified individuals (probably legal counsel), more or less backed off and allowed the reporter to enter the building after again cautioning him to remain away from any restricted areas.

Yes, the reporter, whoever he was, was testing the waters to see what deputies’ reactions would be to his videoing the building and yes, some might say he was seeking a confrontation.

But the bottom line is officers took the bait. They had several opportunities to relent and allow him to exercise his rights to be on public property because after all, he had broken no laws and certainly had not caused a disturbance.

Instead, they showed up in force and attempted to invoke non-existent laws in order to intimidate him, prompting the reporter to single out one deputy as needing re-training.

This mindset that a uniform and a badge give one the unbridled authority to run roughshod over citizens’ rights has simply got to change. Law enforcement officers are there to serve the public, not harass, browbeat and otherwise intimidate them with some macho show of force.

That is specifically why I wrote my book Louisiana’s Rogue Sheriffs: A Culture of Corruption. You can order your signed copy by clicking on the yellow DONATE button to the right of this post and paying $25 by credit card. Be sure to provide your mailing address if you do.