Feeds:
Posts
Comments

After 40 years, what’s a few more days? Angola fails to transport prisoner to hearing on exculpatory evidence

October 26, 2017 by tomaswell

So, just why didn’t the officials at the Department of Corrections transport Vincent Simmons to Marksville for Wednesday’s hearing?

Or better yet, what do prosecutors of the 12th Judicial District have to fear? Are they trying to cover for Eddie Knoll’s mistake? A mistake that has cost Vincent Simmons 40 years of his life?

Most probably, it’s just a matter of someone at Angola State Penitentiary dropping the ball, says New Orleans attorney Robert Hjortsberg.

A hearing was scheduled to be held on Wednesday on a motion by Hjortsberg to recuse Judge Kerry Spruill for a hearing on Simmons’s application for post-conviction relief. Hjortsberg wants Judge Spruill recused because of his association with Knoll, who originally prosecuted Simmons in 1977.

But officials at Angola inexplicably failed to transport Simmons to Marksville even though they “assured us he was going to be here,” Hjortsberg said on Wednesday after the Angola no-show. “In fact, my office also called to make sure he was going to be here because there is a lot of people, including myself, who have come from all over the place in order to be here to support him.”

Vincent was convicted for attempted aggravated rape of twin 14-year-old white girls in 1977 on the basis of what Hjortsberg says was “flawed and contradictory testimony” and in spite of there being no physical evidence of any description against Simmons.

Among the discrepancies that cast doubt on Simmons’s guilt:

  • The girls waited two weeks to report the incident;
  • There was never any physical evidence that the rapes occurred;
  • No forensic tests were carried out on the clothing of the alleged victims, Simmons’s clothing, or the interior of the car in which they said the rapes occurred;
  • The doctor who examined the girls reported that he found no signs of injury on either girl and that one of the girls was still a virgin two weeks after the supposed rapes;
  • Simmons was convicted on July 24, 1977. Yet, on June 10, some six weeks earlier, Dr. F.P. Bordelon, Jr. wrote of his examination of one of the girls, “There was (sic) no bruises on her body. The vaginal examination showed that the hymen was intact.” Contents of Dr. Bordelon’s letter were never admitted into testimony during the trial. That’s exculpatory evidence and grounds for a new trial;
  • The girls initially said they did not know their attacker’s name but testified in court that he had told them his name before assaulting them;
  • The girls said they would not be able to pick out their assailant “because all black men looked the same” to them;
  • Yet, they later picked Simmons out of a police lineup in which he was the only one handcuffed;
  • The police investigation reports did not include a single lead pointing to Simmons, yet he was picked off the street and charged with the crime;
  • Two reports by the same police officer written 24 hours apart gave two completely different locations of the place of arrest;
  • There is no indication that police, at any point, had an official interview with Simmons or that he gave any statement. Yet, when he was arrested and taken into custody, a police officer who was related to Keith Laborde, the supposed victims’ cousin, shot Simmons in the chest, nearly killing him;
  • Police claimed that Simmons disarmed one of the officers and attempted to shoot him but his gun misfired. Yet, this was not mentioned at trial, nor was he ever charged with resisting arrest any other crime related to that claim;
  • The arresting police officers never testified at trial;
  • No pre-trial or investigations by Simmons’s court-appointed legal counsel were ever made;

Simmons has been attempting to win an evidentiary hearing for several decades but the state has never afforded him one.

Simmons’s application for post-conviction relief has offered another piece of exculpatory evidence that was in the prosecution’s possession but never revealed to the jury.

“Recently, Vincent Simmons became aware of an affidavit signed by Pamela Jones, a witness present at the J&J Snack Bar the night of the alleged rapes,” Hjortsberg says in the application. “The withheld information given by Pamela Jones was known by the state because they and/or their agents are the ones that initially acquired the information.”

The rapes allegedly occurred when the girls said they were abducted at a 7-Eleven convenience store by Simmons who then forced Laborde, their 18-year-old cousin, to drive down a remote dirt road where they said they were raped near a lake.

Hjortsberg said that after Jones heard about Simmons’s arrest, she called the District Attorney’s office, gave her name and number, and explained that she knew that Simmons could not have committed the crime. “She was told that someone from the state would contact her, which never happened,” he wrote in his motion.

“After the phone call, Pamela followed up by going to the District Attorney’s office to tell them her side of the story,” he said. When she arrived, she was met by a white male who identified himself as an investigator. “He told Pamela that someone would get in touch with her in a few days to get her statement because there was no one present in the office to take it at the time. No one from the District Attorney’s office ever contacted her again.

“…At least one other individual that described himself as an investigator had knowledge of this information and never turned it over to defense counsel or notified them that the statement had been made.

“This favorable evidence related to Pamela Jones’s statement clearly shows that the Avoyelles Parish District Attorney’s office was aware of the evidence because they are the ones that heard the statements initially. Furthermore,” Hjortsberg says, “the prosecutor in this matter, Edward Knoll, was responsible for disclosing this favorable evidence even if he was unaware of it.”

The trial transcript and official court records shows “that the jury heard nothing about Pamela Jones and the fact that she saw Vincent at the J&J Snack Bar,” the motion says. “Pamela was never subpoenaed nor called as a witness. She also states in her signed affidavit that she never testified at trial nor did she speak to Vincent’s defense counsel. It would be inexplicable for the defense not to have used this evidence if they in fact had it in their possession at the time of the trial.”

Hjortsberg says, “A series of unorthodox and unexplained actions by the Avoyelles Parish District Attorney’s office prevented any reasonable possibility that Vincent Simmons’s trial attorney could have learned of the favorable evidence. Despite the fact that the office was called and physically approached by Pamela Jones—yet never documented her testimony nor made any mention of it to defense counsel—shows that they not only were aware of this favorable evidence but willfully withheld it from the defense.

“The state of Pamela Jones gives a detailed account of what time and day she arrived at the J&J Snack Bar, when Vincent arrived at the snack bar, what time Vincent arrived, what Vincent was doing when he arrived, and finally, what time Vincent left the bar, the motion says.

“The evidence withheld by the state would have been favorable to Vincent because it could have been used at trial to exculpate him—by demonstrating that Vincent could not have been in two places at once.”

Hjortsberg says that in Simmons’s case, the suppressed evidence “discredits the caliber and reliability of the state’s investigation and prosecution of Vincent, because it shows that the state zeroed in on one suspect with little to no investigation despite the weakness of the evidence against him. The suppressed evidence shows that investigators were aware that a credible alibi witness had come forward on Vincent’s behalf and (they) did nothing. It further shows that they had no interest in finding who actually committed these acts but rather focused solely on closing the case as quickly as possible.”

He said that while he is disappointed at the failure of prison officials to follow through on transporting Simmons to his hearing, “The hearing will be held and I’m confident that Vincent will be granted a new trial based on this new information and I don’t think he will be convicted again.”

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Crime, Ethics, Prison | 28 Comments »

Louisiana Book Festival is Saturday in Capitol Park (in front of Capitol, State Library): Mulhearn’s new book will be there

October 26, 2017 by tomaswell

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling

Image may contain: one or more people, text and outdoor

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Terror-Bonne Sheriff refuses to help judge who signed his unconstitutional search warrant with courthouse security

October 24, 2017 by tomaswell

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, there Jerry Larpenter goes again.

Larpenter, the controversial sheriff and apparent strong man of Terrebonne Parish, seems to make decisions on the fly, a-la Donald Trump, about what is and what is not illegal in his parish, established laws be damned. And make no mistake, he is convinced it’s his parish.

Larpenter’s most recent dust-up is over the provision of security in the parish courthouse—which he refuses to do despite laws on the books that clearly say that is part of his job.

The result of his refusal is that the Houma Police Department is now performing security at the Terrebonne Parish governmental building and parish courthouse—all with the blessings of Parish President/Environmental Watchdog Gordon Dove GORDON DOVE.

Dove, while serving in the State Legislature as Chairman, of all things, of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment, managed to get one of his companies, Vacco Marine, Inc., cited on several occasions by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), a feat almost impossible to accomplish in Louisiana. Another company, Dual Trucking, was cited by the Montana Department of Environmental Equality for dumping radioactive waste from the nearby Bakken Oilfield in neighboring North Dakota.

Rumor has it—and this is strictly the word on the street, which more often than not, has more than a grain of truth to it—that 32nd Judicial District Court Judge Randal Bethancourt wanted more security details assigned to the courthouse in beautiful downtown Houma.

This is the same Judge Bethancourt who, apparently without consulting a law book about probable cause or the First Amendment, signed off on a warrant that allowed the high sheriff to come calling on an Internet blogger sometime around dawn to seize computers, cellphones and other electronic equipment—for no other reason than he was pissed because the blogger said some uncomplimentary things about him and the political establishment of Terror-bonne Parish.

To read the LouisianaVoice story of the infamous Free Speech Raid, click HERE.

After a federal court ruled the raid and seizure of the electronic equipment unconstitutional, the blogger, Houma policeman Wayne Anderson and his wife filed suit against the sheriff who SETTLED out of court for an unknown but substantial sum.

Apparently, if the scuttlebutt is correct, Larpenter said no to the request for additional security and he and His Honor got into something akin to a minor verbal war that ended with Larpenter telling Bethancourt that it was the judge’s fault that he, Larpenter, had to lay out some major cash on the Andersons, forgetting, apparently, that it was he, not the good judge, who asked for the search warrant in the first place.

Larpenter must have also forgotten for the moment that he didn’t have to pay a dime of the judgement—or his attorney bills. Those were covered by his office’s liability insurance policy.

But hey, we already said Larpenter thinks and acts a lot like Trump so this is validation of that descriptive analysis.

And just as with the raid on the Andersons was unconstitutional, Larpenter’s refusal to provide courthouse security appears to be at loggerheads with what the law says his duties are.

State statutes leave little wiggle room when they say:

  • “Court criers are to be provided by the sheriff of each parish to each district judge.”
  • “The crier of a court (notice this is not restricted to Orleans) shall attend all sessions thereof, under the direction of the judge shall open and close court at each session, and maintain order and decorum in the court room, and shall perform such other duties as are assigned to him by law, the court, or the sheriff.” (emphasis added)
  • “Each sheriff or deputy shall attend every court that is held in his parish…”
  • “Security in the courthouse is the responsibility of governing authority (Gordon Dove), but an agreement may be made between the parish officers and the building to share the expenses.”
  • “The principal functions of the criminal sheriff are that of being keeper of parish jail and executive officer of the Criminal District Court.”

And then there is Opinion 12-0187 of the Louisiana Attorney General’s office dated Feb. 7, 2013 which says in part:

“…security provided in the courthouse is the responsibility of the parish governing authority under this statutory regime…” and that “…the governing body of the parish shall pay to the sheriff or his deputies attending upon the sessions of their respective courts of appeal and district courts…” Click HERE to read the full opinion:

Even the Texas Judicial Council addressed the issue in a 2016 REPORT on Court Security. Of course, policies in Texas and other states have no bearing on what Louisiana policy regarding courthouse/courtroom security. Still, it’s significant to note that the report says:

“The sheriff in each county is responsible for providing courthouse security.5 The municipal governing body is responsible for doing so in municipal court buildings. While the judiciary itself does not have responsibility or authority for providing court security, it is often in the position to advocate for appropriate security to ensure that individuals in the courts are not threatened as they seek access to justice. In addition, sheriffs and municipalities are not generally responsible for providing direct security to judges and court personnel when they are away from a courthouse, unless specific circumstances warrant such. Rather, it is judges and court personnel who are responsible for ensuring their own safety.”

All of which, of course, means exactly nothing to Larpenter. After all, he makes up his own laws and who are we—or judges, for that matter—to question that authority?

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Judges, Politicians | 7 Comments »

First Circuit Court of Appeal to hear oral arguments on closure of Pineville’s Huey P. Long Hospital on Nov. 7

October 24, 2017 by tomaswell

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard on Nov. 7 in the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge on a three-year-old matter that a layman unfamiliar with the way in which judges can manipulate and interpret laws to keep the meter running would think should have been settled two years ago.

But settling cases quickly and decisively is not the way the courts work and because of that, the case involving the unconstitutional closure of Huey P. Long Medical Center (HPLMC) in Pineville in 2014 rocks on, continuing to rack up fees for contract attorneys for the state—all paid for thanks to the generosity of Louisiana taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the fate of some 570 employees has been held in abeyance since the hospital’s closure on June 30, 2014.

And the manner in which its closure was approved prompted the lawsuit by plaintiffs Edwin Ray Parker, Kenneth Brad Ott and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Here’s the way it all went down:

At 4:07 p.m. on April 1, 2014, a notice of the April 2 meeting at 9 a.m. of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee to consider Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 48 which “Provides for legislative approval of and support to the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University for the strategic collaboration with the state in creating a new model of health care delivery in the Alexandria and Pineville areas.”

A “new model of health care delivery” was a clever way of wording the SCR so as not to tip the hand of the Jindal administration’s intent to shutter the doors of HPLMC. Who could possibly be expected to discern from that goony-babble that in less than 24 hours, the decision would become final to close the facility?

There were only two key things wrong, either of which should have been sufficient grounds to stop closure of HPLMC.

First, the Senate’s own rules promulgated in accordance with the Louisiana Open Meetings Law LA 42:19(B), which says that notice of all such meetings must be posted no later than 1:00 p.m. the day prior to the meeting and if notice is posted after 1:00 p.m., the agenda item may not be heard the next day. (emphasis added)

Second, in a 1986 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

A concurrent resolution…makes no binding policy; it is ‘a means of expressing fact, principles, opinions, and purposes of the two House (House of Representatives and Senate).” (emphasis added)

Attorney J. Arthur Smith, III of Baton Rouge argues that Article III, Paragraph 14 of the Louisiana Constitution provides that the style of a law “shall be ‘…enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana’” and Paragraph 15(A) which says rather bluntly, “The legislature shall enact no law except by a bill introduced during that session…” (emphasis added)

Smith said, “The Legislature cannot amend Louisiana statutes by resolution” because an enacting clause “distinguishes legislative action as law rather than a mere resolution” as held in First National Bank of Commerce, New Orleans v. J.R. Eaves in that “failure to include a significant portion of the enacting clause renders the law unconstitutional.”

To put all that in plain English, Smith is simply pointing out case precedents which hold that a concurrent resolution is not the same as a legislative bill and therefore, is not binding.

That’s pretty straightforward and something that a first-year law student should be able to comprehend.

Yet, when the state appealed the ruling of State Judge Pro-Tem Robert Downing of June 23, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction because the Senate committee violated the Open Meetings Law and provisions of Article III of the Louisiana Constitution, the First Circuit managed somehow to overlook the violations.

Instead, it ruled the state’s appeal as moot since HPLMC closed on June 30, 2014, seven days after Downing’s ruling and the First Circuit did so without even bothering to address the issues on which Downing’s ruling was based.

Moreover, the state appealed directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court on the basis of the declaration of the unconstitutionality of SCR 48. On Jan. 13, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the state’s appeal as moot but on Feb. 24 of this year, granted a rehearing to the First Circuit.

So now, a three-judge panel comprised of Judge John Michael Guidry, Judge John T. Pettigrew and Judge William J. Crain will hear arguments on the constitutionality of SCR 48 and of violations of the Open Meetings Law.

Interestingly, the state argues that notices to the public “need not contain anything other than a bill number” and that the Senate “has no obligation to inform the public of the nature or substance of the legislative proposals it will be considering.”

Now that’s a damned interesting concept. Who knew we, the public, had no right to be informed of what our elected representatives are up to? Who knew the people we elect and send to Baton Rouge have “no obligation” to let us know what they’re cooking up in the House that Huey built? Who knew the Bobby Jindal administration could push a concurrent resolution through the Senate and call it a law? Who knew such upright public servants as Jindal and members of the Senate committee would flim-flam us?

Louisiana R.S. 42:24 authorizes the courts to void “any action taken in violation” provided a lawsuit to void any action “must be commenced within 60 days of the action.”

The Baton Rouge firm of Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips is representing the State in the HPLMC litigation.

Posted in Boards, DHH, Governor's Office, Health Care, Layoffs, Politicians, Privatization, Senate | 3 Comments »

Female employee writes explosive first-person account of sexual harassment by management at Fire Marshal’s Office

October 23, 2017 by tomaswell

Editor’s note: The following first-person account was submitted to LouisianaVoice for publication. The writer’s name is being withheld because she is still employed at the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal and she fears for her job, her safety and that of her family. Several employees of the fire marshal’s office have already been fired or forced to resign because management suspected them of talking to LouisianaVoice. This post is certain to prompt a new round of interrogations and intimidation tactics to ferret out the new mole. But Fire Marshal Butch Browning may want to be very careful: if he finds and punishes or fires this individual, she will have no compunction about going public and naming names. She’s very angry and this is a bit more serious than decorating your uniform with military medals you never earned.

To her story, we would only add this question of Gov. John Bel Edwards: What are you going to do about this situation that this woman says is even now occurring on your watch?

I want to get right into my discussion, as recent news from around the country and world has allowed me the opportunity to tell my story.

I am a female employee at the Office of State Fire Marshal, Baton Rouge/Headquarters Office.

Over the past several years, upper management and the high-ranking deputies of this agency have sexually harassed me on numerous occasions—making inappropriate comments and sexual advances towards me. I have witnessed first-hand these advances being made towards others, as well.

I started my career with DPS a number of years ago and have been the victim of several comments and suggestions and subject to jokes about homosexuality and bestiality.

Several years ago, I was approached by a top supervisor about a special project to handle. While in his presence, he made it quite known that to “advance” in the agency, I would have to subject myself to him. I did not file a complaint, as I heard this was common amongst his bosses at Louisiana State Police.

I rejected those advances and went about my business. A few weeks later, another individual in my capacity told me about a similar situation she was involved in with another supervisor. The advances were brushed off and I continued to work at SFM. Several months later, a new employee with ties to the DPS compound (relative to higher-ups) was brought in the agency to handle similar clerical type jobs. I witnessed her being subjected to advances from several upper management heads until her abrupt departure shortly after. I was told she was just a temporary assignment anyway, and I moved on.

About two years ago, I was approached by the newest member of the executive staff. I heard from several sources in his previous agency that he was a man who knew what he wanted and just how to get it. It didn’t matter what kind of car he drove or uniform he wore, but he did things his own way. I was told that to move up in this agency, I was to kiss the feet of the new “Prince” himself. He was, in fact, related to a powerful politician. I soon recognized that this wasn’t just a made for TV movie about a corrupt southern town where the boss gets what he wants because he was related to the power brokers; I was actually living in a nightmare in real time.

Sure enough, the “Prince” approached me. It was just the two of us in the room, and he made his move. It began innocently enough about work. Then came the jokes about our personal lives. Then sexually suggestive comments that made me quite uncomfortable. I excused myself and we didn’t speak of it for the rest of the day. Sure enough, it returned. When I was again alone with him in the office, the story repeated itself. As a married mother, I brushed it off and changed the topic. But predictably, he brought the conversation around to just how well my career could/would be advanced had I given him what he wanted—ME. I was a young, dumb clerk who decided my family was important, and more important than me.

I decided to play his games.

When he made comments about my breasts, I joked and flirted back. When he said my rear end looked good, I joked and made suggestive comments again. Surely enough, he was falling for it. That’s when I decided to use this to my advantage and work myself to a better/higher position in this agency.

I asked him for favors and filed training requests to attend certain courses where I would be out of the office more. I asked to be assigned to another division where my work load would be decreased. I asked for a certain vehicle, and sure enough, it was mine—just like everyone said it would be.

It ended there. I made sure that it he knew that after I got what I wanted (and he got what he wanted), that was it. He was told that this would end it, and it did.

I am ashamed of what I did, but it was for my family and my career.

This man sexually harassed me, forcing me in uncomfortable situations to further my career.

Butch Browning knew about this but never did a thing about it.

Several, if not all upper management at SFM know about this, but are afraid to speak of it because of the fear they have for upper management and the highly-placed politicians who protect them.

I remain anonymous because I am still an employee with this agency, but I am very well aware of LouisianaVoice‘s articles about this office.

I am a proud mother and wife and I am truly ashamed for allowing myself to be harassed, but I know this story must be shared—now more than ever. This hasn’t ended. This happens every day, yet claims aren’t filed because of the fear of this man. Complaints can’t be made for fear of having them fall on deaf ears at the top—and for fear of the reprisals that would certainly follow.

To this day, I hear jokes about homosexuality and bestiality being made by upper management—comments about homosexual employees and our SFM K-9 dogs. To this day, I hear a joke about a woman’s vagina or a man’s penis size. To this day, I hear about management’s sexual conquests with deputies’ wives. To this day, I am told stories about affairs being carried on by upper management with clerks and deputies. To this day, I am truly embarrassed for what I put myself through. But I need to tell my story.

This is my story.

And I want it told.

It took incredible courage for this woman to come forward. Any other employee(s) with similar stories of sexual or racial discrimination at the State Fire Marshal’s Office is/are encouraged to come forward. Your identity will be protected above all else.

—Tom Aswell, publisher

Posted in Civil Service, Corruption, Crime, Ethics, Governor's Office, Guest Columnist, Media, State Fire Marshal, State Police | 14 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »