HOME

TRUSTEES OF FREEDOM
Dedicated to the Right to Counsel in Louisiana	September 10, 1997 Vol 5, No. 7

Fall CLE Taking Shape

Lafayette

The 9^th annual CRIMINAL LITIGATION SEMINAR will be November 7^th and 8^th at the Holiday Inn Central in Lafayette. The 1997 version will include, among other things:

- Recent Developments

- Capital

- Juvenile Law & Procedure

- Ethics

- Sex Offender Psychology

- Good Time Calculation

- The Impact Program

- Drug Courts

- Computer Resources in Criminal Law

- Making a Record At District Court

- and How to Develop a Drug Court

After some success with a "multi-track" format, LaPDA will again offer a number of break-off programs to allow specialists to focus on areas of special interest. Some of the Juvenile, Death Penalty and Drug Court programs will be set up for the second track.

A free social after the Friday Program will be hosted by LaPDA. We are considering a special honor for some of the people who have worked hard for the improvement and success of Indigent Defense in Louisiana.

EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION is included with this Newsletter. The full program will be available by the end of September. Thanks to all our members and friends who have already called about the 1997 Program, and we look forward to another success.

_________________

Washington Post: THE TV CRIME WAVE

This edition of Trustees of Freedom includes an article from the Washington Post Weekly. The Post finds that much of the hysteria about homicide is rooted in yellow journalism. An interesting view indeed.

__________________

Co-D Sentence Not Grounds under 881

STATE v. BELL, 97-0308 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/9/97); 692 So.2d 1349 writ denied 97-0347 (La. 6/30/97); ___ So.2d ___

Convict cannot apply for reconsideration under 881 based on complaint that co-defendant got less time. In this case the Trial Court granted reconsideration some 8 years after imposition of sentence.

"La.C.Cr.P. art. 881 provides that the trial court may amend a legal sentence prior to the beginning of the execution of the sentence. In this case, however, the execution of the sentence began in 1988, and the trial court was without authority to amend or change the sentence after this time."

The Court also noted the 881.1 Motion was untimely.

"Further, although the trial court based the lowering of defendant's sentence on the fact that the co-defendant received a lesser sentence than that of defendant, this does not render defendant's sentence excessive. The fact that a co-defendant receives a lesser sentence is not grounds for invalidating a defendant's sentence. See, State v. Jones, 600 So.2d 914 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992), writ denied, 623 So.2d 1300 (La. 1993)."

C.I. Living Arrangements Not Admissible

STATE v. BOYLE, 96-644 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97); 694 So.2d 1071 holds that the grant of a Motion in Limine by State to exclude certain defense evidence was proper. The Dissent noted the Trial Court didn't even hold a hearing on the evidence, and says the Court of Appeal should at least require that.

The dissent notes that "Defendant alleged that Mr. Couvillion, the confidential informant, resided in a "live-in" relationship with one of Boyle's ex-employees, a former dancer at the Downs Lounge. Defendant alleged the testimony he sought to present would establish the informant's bias against him."

LOOK FOR THIS ONE TO COME BACK.

APPARENTLY D.A.s ARE BEING TAUGHT TO RELY ON THE MOTION IN LIMINE, BUT IN THIS CASE THE TRIAL COURT GAVE TOO NARROW AN INTERPRETATION TO IMPEACHMENT.

In Dissent, Judge Daley noted that LSA-C. E. art. 607(D)(1) provides for showing bias of a witness, and notes that "The confidential informant was the only witness to testify that the defendant sold him marijuana; thus, his testimony, and therefore his credibility, is the crux of the state's case against defendant.".

Suppression Granted: No Basis for Stop

STATE v. CHARK, 96-1667 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/97); 693 So.2d 316

"The facts are that two officers confronted a lone individual in order to investigate possible criminal activity. Officer Bender testified that, based on the defendant's black clothing and alleged attempts to conceal himself, they suspected that the individual was a burglar. Further, and without any basis, the officers also suspected that the bicycle in the defendant's possession was stolen property."

"The record in this case does not support a finding of reasonable suspicion on the part of the officers to justify their stop of the defendant."

AT THE MOTION, THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE P.C., JUST A 'SUSPICION' SOMETHING WAS UP. THERE WERE NO ARTICULABLE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE STOP.