Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill gets a reprieve from the state Supreme Court less than 24 hours after an Orleans Parish grand jury indicted her on 16 criminal counts.
The Supreme Court issued a stay in the indictment early Friday morning, setting aside for now the eight counts of malfeasance in office and eight counts of intimidation and retaliation on which Murrill was charged.
"We have long recognized that the exercise of this authority is warranted when 'the issues presented (are) of an extraordinary nature, time-sensitive, and of such significant public interest that the court’s plenary, supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised,'" the two-and-a-half page per curiam order states. "In this case the Attorney General makes a compelling argument concerning the disturbing defects in the grand jury proceedings and in the trial court’s handling of those proceedings. This indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties."
The court says those improprieties include the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court's failure to hold the grand jury returns in open court and the detainment of journalists who were covering the proceedings. In addition, the court noted a conflict of interest between special prosecutor Laurie White and the Attorney General's Office. According to the order, Murrill's office is defending White in a sexual harrassment suit.
Furthermore, the court said that Murrill's contention that she was simply doing her job likely will be enough for her to win the case.
"The Attorney General raises significant constitutional and legal issues with the potential application of La. R.S. 14:122 to this situation," the order stated. "She argues that she was merely performing her constitutional duty to defend the state’s law and that her legal interpretation of that law was correct. She also contends that this particular criminal statute requires violence, force, extortionate threats, or true threats as defined by La.C.Cr.P. art. 14:122, which requires that those threats be unlawful or include a threat of bodily harm or death.
"While the record before this Court is undeveloped, there is considerable support for the view that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits of a motion to quash this indictment on either a legal basis or due to apparent procedural irregularities. She obviously also suffers irreparable harm by allowing this matter to proceed without these important issues being addressed."
One justice, John Michael Guidry, dissented.
"Without even allowing the ink to dry on the indictment, the majority gives preference and priority to one criminally accused citizen over of all her fellow citizens who also have been criminally charged, many of whom are languishing behind bars awaiting action by lower courts, and it may take them years before they are ever granted review of their matters by this court," Guidry wrote. "There is no exigency that exists here that is not faced by every other indicted citizen. This is not supposed to be how the system works. Due process and equal protection under the law does not allow anyone to cut the line and have their matters considered more preferentially than others."
In his dissent, Guidry accused his colleagues of giving Murrill "preferential treatment" which "has no place under the rule of law" and "gives the public the perception that the scales of justice can be tilted to favor the position of one criminally accused person, but not others."
"As our state’s highest court, we should sincerely care about the rule of law and vigorously protect it without fear or favor," Guidry said. "To do anything less is beneath the dignity of our state’s highest court. This perilous and unprecedented action threatens this court’s longterm legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Can our court truly say with a straight face after today’s ruling, on the eve of the 250th anniversary of our nation’s independence, that we truly believe that no one is above the law?
"Our actions should always be evidence based. Yet the majority takes this extraordinary and unprecedented action based on the applicant’s mere allegations, often couched in the legal jargon of “on information and belief,” unsupported by sworn record evidence. We have no idea what evidence was presented or what sworn testimony was given before the grand jury. That is why this matter should be allowed to be vetted through the normal legal process."
In a statement, Murrill called the indictment a "political witch hunt" and said she feared that it could be a "harbinger of things to come."
“I’m grateful to the Louisiana Supreme Court for swiftly issuing a stay in this matter," Murrill said. The constitution and laws of Louisiana impose a wide swath of duties on the Attorney General. I will continue to carry out those duties to the best of my ability. This matter is not over. I will still need to file the necessary motions to seek a dismissal, which will be forthcoming. I want to thank the many friends and supporters who have expressed their support and encouragement.
