MS. TAPLIN: No, your Honor. In a first

The exhibits,
1
I believe,
2
admitted and received,
3
ah,
4
are now admitted and received subject to objections
5
that were stated at the time.
you know,
and,
have all been
urn,
to the extent that,
I may not have officially ruled,
they
Do you have a rebuttal case or anything you
6
7
wish to put on to rebut anything they've argued or
8
submitted?
9
MS.
No,
10
11
your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
12
13
TAPLIN:
MS.
14
TAPLIN:
Sorry.
One clarification.
15
submit S-14 or
16
MR.
18
report.
19
MS.
MR.
Thank you.
PICKETT:
There's a new S-14,
22
23
transmittal sheet.
24
THE COURT:
All right.
25
26
argument?
27
MS.
28
29
32
Now,
which is the FAX
do you want to make an
TAPLIN:
Yes,
your Honor.
THE COURT:
30
31
It's not the conduct
TAPLIN:
Okay.
20
Did you just
PICKETT:
S-14 was re-numbered.
17
21
Do you want to make an argument?
All right.
MS.
TAPLIN:
In a first-degree murder case involving the
53
1
execution of a New Orleans police officer and two
2
other individuals in which a young African-American
3
man is accused possibly in a notorious case in a
4
notorious decade,
5
a lawyer who didn't even know how to pick a fair
6
and impartial jury.
7
when he allowed someone not even connected with
8
this case to take over voir dire for him.
9
lawyer,
10
this teenager was represented by
He admitted as much in court
arriving late that day,
That
clearly did not
know how to voir dire a jury either.
The length of time that we've spent hearing
11
12
the testimony of three jurors on their bias or
13
presumed bias is essentially the length of time it
14
took to voir dire and select this entire jury in
15
Mr.
16
Lacaze's capital trial.
Your Honor has asked us to address the issue
17
of ineffective assistance of counsel that was
18
raised on appeal,
19
ineffective assistance of counsel in voir dire was
20
raised on appeal.
21
were not,
22
misconduct was unknown at the time of the appeal,
23
and there was no evidence of the prejudice that
24
your Honor has seen.
25
and I'd like to note here that
Our claims of jury misconduct
and there is a reason for that.
On appeal when this claim was raised,
quote,
The
the
26
Supreme Court stated,
"While Caulfield's
27
performance may have been less than stellar and the
28
speed of voir dire may give pause,
29
and particularly on this record,
30
concluded that jurors were misinformed about any
31
single issue with respect to the guilt phase of
32
trial."
The Court further said,
54
on the balance
it cannot be
"Even if counsel's
1
conduct at voir dire amounted to professional
2
dereliction,
3
claims of ineffectiveness."
the lack of apparent prejudice dooms
The prejudice,
4
which is what your Honor heard
5
from three individuals on Monday,
is exactly what
6
the Supreme Court did not know.
7
Mr.
8
member of the Louisiana State Police with a 20-year
9
history in law enforcement.
Mr.
Caulfield and
Turk ended up with a jury that included a
Mr.
Settle was asked
10
during voir dire about his connections to law
11
enforcement,
12
his work history.
13
stand --
14
THE COURT:
MS.
Settle got up on the
TAPLIN:
Yes.
17
18
Mr.
Clarify for me with respect to Settle.
15
16
and he failed to reveal anything about
THE COURT:
I understood he was a driver's license officer
19
20
or something of that nature.
21
MS.
22
TAPLIN:
No,
your Honor.
Mr.
Settle got up on the
23
stand and claimed to have never worked for the
24
State police, yet records presented to this Court
25
make very clear that at the time of Mr.
26
trial,
27
is a reason why business records are hearsay
28
exception because the records regularly maintained
29
for business and employment don't lie.
30
did admit on the stand that he was a former police
31
officer,
32
officer on the railroad,
he did work for the State police.
Lacaze's
And there
Mr.
Settle
that he had a history as being a police
and Mr.
55
Settle was clearly
1
asked during the voir dire about his ties to law
2
enforcement,
3
despite the fact that other members of this panel
4
volunteered their connections to law enforcement.
5
THE COURT:
What did he do for the State police?
6
7
MS.
TAPLIN:
I believe he was a motor vehicles officer for
8
9
and he remained completely silent
the State police.
He was a field officer according
10
to his employment records.
11
THE COURT:
What does that mean?
12
13
MS.
TAPLIN:
My understanding. of being a field officer is
14
15
that you are a police officer who is in the field,
16
urn,
17
vehicle violations,
18
THE COURT:
assessing tickets,
essentially.
20
he were a deputy sheriff,
21
deputy?
22
MS.
you would say road
TAPLIN:
THE COURT:
25
26
-- what -- if
Essentially.
23
24
urn,
those sorts of things.
You're suggesting that he was a
19
I believe,
You're saying he's a street trooper?
MS.
TAPLIN:
No,
27
your Honor.
I'm not quite clear if it
28
would go that far to say street trooper.
29
point out though that when we were able to obtain
30
the jury list that was not provided,
31
Mr.
Turk,
32
Ah,
Mr.
Mr.
I would-
we believe,
to
Settle was listed as law enforcement.
Settle has also testified that he was a
56
1
police officer for 20 years,
2
a connection to law enforcement
3
nothing.
4
THE COURT:
Now r
5
at this point --
6
it comes to mer
7
MS.
9
10
r
and yet he said
i t ' s out of my head.
If
then I ' l l interrupt you again.
TAPLIN:
Okay.
8
which clearly suggests
Mr.
Settle's failure to be forthright
with this Court on Monday is really only additional
evidence pointing to his -misconduct.
And Mr.
11
Caulfield and Mr.
Turk ended up with a
12
jury that included a woman whose brother was
13
murdered only a
14
prejudice that was completely unknown to the
15
Louisiana Supreme Court.
16
during voir dire if her family or friends had ever
17
been the victims of crime.
18
despite the fact that again other members of the
19
panel had volunteered information.
20
never revealed that her brother had been murdered
21
only a
22
few years before.
Ms.
This again is
Garrett was asked
She said nothing,
Ms.
Garrett
few years before.
But I
think the most shocking example to
23
everyone in the court was that of Ms.
24
Mr.
25
that included a NOPD dispatcher who remained
26
unchallenged.
27
Louisiana Supreme Court at the time of Mr.
28
direct appeal.
29
specifically said that there were only hints that
30
act-
31
officers or their spouses may have served r
32
does not provide a basis for reversal.
Caulfield and Mr.
This
r
Mushatt.
Turk ended up with a
again r
jury
was not known to the
Lacaze's
Louisiana Supreme Court
-- in the record before them that active duty
57
and that
But Ms.
1
Mushatt was not simply a member of the
Ms.
Mushatt was a
2
New Orleans Police Department.
3
dispatcher who was in the room when the 9-1-1 call
4
came in relating to this homicide.
5
specifically testified about the call that came in.
6
She specifically testified about how she and other
7
dispatchers were searching to try to find out
8
who Antoinette was, when the calls came in.
9
Ms.
Ms.
Mushatt
Mushatt testified that her husband was a
10
veteran police officer with the New Orleans Police
11
Department;
12
attended Ronald Williams·
13
to pause there so that we can all think about how
14
much it affected this entire case to have someone
15
who attended the victim's funeral sit in judgment
16
against Mr.
17
of first-degree murder and if they should sentence
18
him to life or to death.
This was completely
19
unknown to trial counsel,
and this was unknown to
20
the
21
Ms. Mushatt testified that she
funeral.
And I
just want
Lacaze and determine if he was guilty
Loui~iana
Supreme Court on appeal.
The combination of Ms.
of
22
David Settle,
23
affected this case from the very start.
24
does not contest,
25
facts that we've presented about these jurors·
26
backgrounds.
27
contest any of the facts about Ms.
28
comes out of her very mouth,
29
provided you with her employment records.
30
and Ms.
Mushatt,
Garrett on this jury is what
or has not contested,
The State
any of the
They couldn't -- certainly could not
Mushatt,
as it
and we've also
The State on cross-examine simply asked these
31
jurors or individuals if it would have affected
32
their jury service.
When asked by the State if
58
1
being a police officer affected you as a juror,
2
Ms.
Mushatt answered,
3
Ms.
Mushatt had wholeheartedly endorsed her
4
impartiality,
5
that a jurors'
6
task is absolutely irrelevant to this Court's
7
inquiry.
8
Defense counselor the Judge,
9
same.
10
"I don't think so."
the case law makes abundantly clear
assurance that they are up to the
Whether it is the fault of the jurors or
the result is the
I'd like to turn now to Mr.
11
judicial bias,
12
raised on appeal,
13
because again,
14
counsel at the time of appeal.
15
I
Even if
Lacaze's claim of
and this is a claim that was not
and it was not raised on appeal
the facts were unknown to Defense
thought a lot today about the process we've
16
gone through during the recusal of Judge Marullo.
17
We had several hearings.
18
Louisiana Supreme Court and had oral argument on
19
the recusal issue.
20
at that time,
21
Sergeant Harrison that detailed the investigation
22
into the gun that was given to Antoinette Frank and
23
Judge Marullo's involvement in that.
24
even know those details.
25
even when presented with very little during oral
26
argument as the State argued that a hearing wasn't
27
necessary on recusal,
28
asked,
29
believe the Louisiana Supreme Court entered it's
30
opinion that very evening after oral argument.
31
32
quote,
We went up to the
At the Louisiana Supreme Court
we were unaware of the report by
We didn't
We had very little.
But
it was Justice Guidry who
"How much more smoke do you need?"
I
I want to say from the outset that this is not
a personal attack on Judge Marullo.
59
1
depend on finding corruption or that he engaged in
2
something untoward with Ms.
3
Judge Marullo testified before this Court that he
4
did not sign the order,
5
his current testimony or not,
6
signed this order doesn't matter.
7
that there can be any question that the Court had
8
an obligation to disclose that,
9
approached by Sergeant Harrison;
Frank or David Talley.
and this Court may credit
but ultimately,
who
I don't think
one,
he had been
that,
two,
10
Sergeant Harrison had informed him that something
11
that looked like his signature was on an order
12
releasing what appears to be the murder weapon to
13
Antoinette Frank;
14
to these officers as part of their investigation;
15
and that,
16
answer questions,
17
because he was sitting on Rogers Lacaze's case.
18
And then Judge Marullo sat silently as
19
Rogers Lacaze testified that Antoinette Frank had
20
told him she was getting a 9 millimeter weapon from
21
the property room from a friend,
22
evidence in support of that.
23
four,
that,
three,
he then proceeded to refuse to
to give a taped statement,
information,
25
himself.
26
was filed in this case,
27
recusal hearing,
28
this critical information.
29
THE COURT:
30
32
with no other
Judge Marullo had an obligation to reveal this
24
31
he gave statements
and he had an obligation to recuse
And I will note that a Motion to Recuse
and even during that
Judge Marullo failed to reveal
What was the basis of that Motion to Recuse?
MS.
TAPLIN:
The basis of the Motion to Recuse was at the
60
1
beginning of trial -- I
think it was the day of
2
trial -- Judge Marullo held Willie Turk in
3
contempt.
4
prison,
5
Judge Marullo,
6
at Mr.
7
he embarrassed him in front of his client,
8
Mr.
He sentenced him to six months in
urn,
for violating a gag order.
according to the motion,
screamed
He felt incompetent to proceed.
Turk.
Ah,
and so
Turk filed a Motion to Recuse based on that.
There was a hearing in front of Judge McCabe,
9
10
and Judge Marullo was asked if he could be
11
impartial in this matter.
12
that he could.
13
for his recusal,
14
the recusal hearing.
15
THE COURT:
Urn,
Judge Marullo stated
He did not reveal any other reason
urn,
and that was the conclusion of
The basis for the filing of the motion was
16
17
Judge Marullo's enforcement of the gag order and
18
the manner in which he did it?
19
MS.
\
Essentially, your Honor.
20
21
TAPLIN: ,
THE COURT:
I never really understood what that was about,
22
23
if it was related to the weapon or some other
24
conduct or --
25
MS.
TAPLIN:
26
It was not related to the weapon for the
27
very reason that Defense counsel didn't know about
28
it.
29
weapon.
30
Judge Marullo's involvement.
31
no idea this Public Integrity Division
32
investigation was going on.
Defense counsel was never told about this
Defense counsel was never told about
61
Defense counsel had
1
THE COURT:
2
Okay.
3
MS.
TAPLIN:
The Supreme Court has held,
4
"Every procedure
5
which would offer a possible temptation to the
6
average man as Judge,
7
clear,
8
denies the latter due process of law.
9
its high function in the best way,
not to hold the balance nice,
and true between the State and the accused,
To perform
justice must
Mr.
Lacaze's
10
satisfy the appearance of justice."
11
trial did not satisfy the appearance of justice.
12
It didn't even come close.
Every piece of evidence,
13
every single witness
14
that this Court has heard from this week,
was
15
someone or something that was not put before the
16
jury in 1995 and was not put before the Louisiana
17
Supreme Court on direct appeal.
18
evidentiary hearing,
19
exhibits,
20
have been done in 1995 if the adversarial process
21
had been engaged.
Through this
through pleadings and
we have attempted to present what should
I'm gonna discuss our additional claims of
22
23
ineffective assistance of counsel,
24
spend too much time on the deficiency prong,
25
feel
26
before this Court that you 1 re well aware of.
27
However,
28
the Stricklin claim are deficiency and proof of
29
prejudice.
30
more could Willie Turk have done.
31
could Willie Turk have done any less.
32
and I will not
as I
that there's been ample evidence presented
I
this Court knows that the two prongs of
The question in this case is not what
The question is,
found it interesting this week when the
62
1
District Attorney cross-examined many witnesses,
2
they would ask,
3
it is the obligation of witnesses to come to
4
Mr.
5
to know what is relevant evidence in a capital
6
trial,
7
present themselves with records at Mr.
8
excuse me,
9
effective counsel to perform some kind of
Turk,
"Did you call Willie Turk," as if
as if it is the obligation of witnesses
as if it is the obligation of witnesses to
at Mr.
Turk's door.
Lacaze --
The duty is on
10
investigation.
The duty is on effective counsel to
11
essentially reach out to these witnesses,
12
collect records,
to engage experts.
13
counsel's duty.
This is not the witness'
14
It's not the job of the 18-year-old defendant's
15
family and friends.
16
the job of investigators like those your Honor has
17
seen this week,
18
people who do this work and should do this work.
Ms.
to
This is
duty.
It's the job of counsel.
Thomas
r
Ms.
Wydra.
It's
These are
I want to first address the identification
19
20
issues surrounding ineffective assistance of
21
counsel,
and again r
22
appeal.
On direct appeal
23
clear that the matter could not be resolved on this
24
record,
25
heard very little of what your Honor has heard this
26
week.
27
preliminary hearing where Quoc Vu and Chau Vu first
28
made identifications.
29
your Honor as an exhibit because it wasn't even
30
included in the record.
31
32
this was raised on direct
r
the Court made very
and the reason for that is that the Court
The Court did not have transcripts of the
We made that available to
The Court did not have the NOPD statements of
the eyewitness
r
which r
although suppressed,
63
the
1
information in it would have come out at the
2
suppression hearing,
3
the vastly inconsistent statements about what those
4
witnesses observed that night.
and the Court would have heard
The Louisiana Supreme Court didn't hear the
5
6
testimony of Dr.
7
of these eyewitness identifications,
8
Louisiana Supreme Court didn't hear the testimony
9
of Vui Vu,
10
Dysart regarding the reliability
and the
which your Honor heard for the first
time of anyone in this case.
r won't say much about John Ross or the credit
11
12
card because,
13
evidence of this credit card hardly made the
14
State's case for either first-
15
murder.
16
ineffectiveness certainly stretched his failure to
17
challenge the testimony and the identification of
18
John Ross.
19
and discovered how remarkably suggestive it was to
20
include the names and identifying information of
21
all of the individuals.
22
station receipt,
23
post-conviction counsel.
24
on the Motion to Suppress where he may have
25
discovered that John Ross originally told police
26
that Rogers Lacaze was in a car with a woman,
27
fact that completely contradicts the State's
28
narrative at trial.
29
Mr.
30
it with his brother-in-law before he was approached
31
by the police.
32
as Mr.
Reed
t~stified
on Friday,
or second-degree
r will say that Willie Turk's
He never asked for a copy of the lineup
He never requested the gas
which has never been produced to
He never held a hearing
a
He would have discovered that
Ross had seen media on the case and discussed
And had he been paying attention at trial,
64
he
1
would have noticed that John Ross never testified
2·
to seeing anyone use Ronald Williams'
3
on the night of the crime.
4
he saw a man later identified as Rogers Lacaze use
5
a credit card on some unknown night.
6
inattention allowed the State to argue facts not in
7
evidence to the jury.
8
9
credit card
He simply stated that
His
In a cas'e where the only direct evidence
placing his client inside the restaurant at the
10
time of the homicide was the testimony of
11
eyewitnesses,
12
would not file a motion to suppress.
13
incomprehensible that he waived all objections to
14
identification.
15
it is incomprehensible that Mr.
And as this Court heard from Dr.
Turk
It's
Dysart,
the
16
identifications in this case had all of the
17
hallmarks of unreliability.
18
opportunity to see the perpetrators.
19
cross-racial identification.
20
opportunity to contaminate each other by speaking
21
before they gave statements to police.
22
witnesses were hiding in fear,
23
were unduly suggestive.
24
There was limited
It was a
The witnesses had the
The
and the procedures
The failure to move to suppress the
25
identification of Chau Vu is especially shocking
26
because she identified Mr.
27
time in court standing in a prison uniform next to
28
Antoinette Frank,
29
is highly suggestive.
30
preliminary hearing,
31
Court knew nothing about,
32
transcript.
Lacaze for the first
which your Honor is well aware,
Again,
this occurred at
which the Louisiana Supreme
because there was no
65
I don't believe that
1
I
Cha~
Vu was lying at
don't believe that Quoc Vu came in here
2
trial.
3
and lied to you,
4
memory can play tricks on you.
5
shift based on your influences.
6
many cases of wrongful convictions,
7
remain certain that the wrong man was the
8
perpetrator even after DNA evidence exonerated
9
them.
but I do know and we all know that
We know that it can
We know that in
eyewitnesses
But these issues were never presented to the
10
Court at a suppression hearing or to the jury.
11
There was no discussion of it during voir dire.
12
There were no instructions on eyewitness evidence
13
and no meaningful cross-examination on the
14
witnesses'
15
themselves.
16
ability to see the perpetrators
This Court had the opportunity to hear from
17
Vui Vu for the first time.
18
the Louisiana Supreme Court knew nothing about.
19
The State failed to disclose to Defense counsel
20
that Ms.
21
did not identify Rogers Lacaze.
22
called Ms.
23
testimony last week explains why the State would
24
not want her before the jury.
25
jurors would have heard a different version of what
26
went on in that cooler.
27
Again,
a person that
Vui Vu was shown a photographic lineup and
Vu to the stand.
I
The State never
think Ms.
Vu's
If they had,
the
Ms. Vu testified that she and Quoc and Chau
28
sat together in the cooler and that all you could
29
see was the shadow of a person.
30
only one of the three who never saw Rogers Lacaze
31
eating dinner that night,
32
kitchen.
Ms.
Vu was the
because she was in the
She was the only one who was not open to
66
1
the assumption that the perpetrator who came in
2
earlier was the same person who came in during the
3
shootings.
4
information about Ms. Vu and the lineup,
5
Mr.
but
Turk also had a duty to investigate it.
I
6
The State had a duty to disclose
think one of the most instructive moments
7
on this hearing was when the State chose to call
8
Quoc Vu to the stand in an attempt to rebut
9
Ms.
Vui Vu's testimony.
When I
asked Mr.
he said,
Vu if Vui
10
would lie about her account,
"She doesn't
11
lie about nothing."
12
what the jury didn't,
13
different accounts of that night.
14
retrying Rogers Lacaze's case in this courtroom,
15
although I
16
we're simply trying to demonstrate the evidence
17
that could have been put before the jurors in 1995.
And so this Court got to see
which is two witnesses giving
We're not
know sometimes it appears close.
But
18
I'm gonna move on to the ineffective
19
assistance of counsel for failure to call
20
Ms. Angela Walker and Mr.
21
this was a claim that was not raised on direct
22
appeal.
23
halfhearted alibi Defense throughout,
24
his client and his client's brother,
25
juror credited.
26
halfhearted because it was a lie.
27
Peter Williams.
Again,
Willie Turk presented essentially a
through only
a man that no
The State argued that it was
The State put on Patrick Mazant,
who testified
28
that Rogers Lacaze never played pool that night.
29
The State made Rogers and his brother look like
30
liars because their timing was off.
31
look like liars,
32
from a prison phone.
They made them
because they had called each other
The State made Michael look
67
1
like a liar because he said that police had beat a
2
statement out of him.
3
been unheard of to an Orleans Parish jury who were
4
well aware of the activities of some New Orleans
5
police officers in 1995, yet without the
6
corroboration of non-family members,
7
nothing for the jury to hang onto.
8
Louisiana Supreme Court,
9
this case,
This concept would not have
there was
I believe the
in reciting the facts of
even made mention that Mr.
10
mentioned a woman like Angela,
11
put before the jury.
Turk
yet she never was
Your Honor has heard what the jury did not
12
13
hear,
14
unwaiveringly stating,
15
night."
16
front of her husband,
17
officer.
18
know Angela well enough to remember her name.
19
These are not two people who got together and
20
concocted a story 18 years later.
21
people who stood up and told this Court what they
22
knew about that night.
23
contradicted the testimony of Patrick Mazant both
24
when he stated that Rogers was never playing pool
25
that night and also when he stated that he always
26
checked I.D.s at the front door,
27
would know.
28
two impartial people standing up and
Ms.
"I was with Rogers that
You heard from Angela as she testified in
who is a New Orleans police
You heard from Peter,
who didn't even
These are two
These are two people who
and that's how he
LaRhonda White also testified in a way
29
that would have completely contradicted
30
Patrick Mazant had she been presented at trial.
31
Patrick Mazant,
32
motivated to say what police wanted to hear,
who himself would have been
68
1
because he ran an establishment where drugs were
2
sold and children were running around freelYI
3
again
but
none of this was known to jurors.
l
We don't have to ask if Peter was willing to
4
He testified at a
He did.
5
testify in 1995.
6
preliminary
7
which was never before the Louisiana Supreme Court.
8
And as he testified
9
Willie Turk ever again.
he~ring.
l
Again
l
the transcript of
he never heard from
We don't have to ask if
Turk knew about Angela.
Not only was her name
10
Mr.
11
mentioned throughout the trial
12
actually on his list of alibi witnesses
+3
never contacted her
14
asked her to testify.
15
steps to put on the very Defense that he was trying
16
to put on l
17
I
l
l
but she was
l
yet he
he never interviewed and never
He failed to take the basic
and that is inexcusable.
will turn just very briefly to ineffective
18
assistance of counsel for failure to hire a crime
19
scene expert.
20
direct appeal.
21
raising the claim or the issues about the crime
22
scene investigation l
23
stated sua sponte that the State's version of the
24
events presented at trial was implausible
25
not heard any of the evidence that your Honor has
26
been presented with today.
27
ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to
28
hire a crime scene expert wasn't even before the
29
Court
30
speaks volumes that the Louisiana Supreme Court
31
went out of their way to call this implausible.
32
l
This again was a claim not raised on
Yet even without Defense counsel
it was Justice Traylor who
Again
l
having
the claim of
so they could not rule on it.
But that
Had Willie Turk hired a crime scene
69
l
1
investigator,
the jury would have heard what your
2
Honor heard,
3
been provided with the materials giving a version
4
of what he thought about the crime scene
5
investigation in this case and how the crime took
6
place.
7
perhaps the state would have called someone in
8
rebuttal
9
experts.with different versions,
which is essentially an expert who had
Your Honor would have heard essentially
and the jury would have heard two
and they would
10
have been able to decide which one they believed.
11
The jury would have also heard,
12
testified,
13
perhaps shot across,
14
was at eye level,
15
said,
16
could have reached over those things and shot
17
Ronald Williams in the manner that he was shot.
18
Rogers Lacaze's trial the jury only heard one
19
voice.
as Mr.
Scanlan
that the bar that Ronald Williams was
including all of the items,
making it,
as the Supreme Court
implausible that a man of Mr.
Lacaze's height
At
I ' l l now move on to briefly address
20
21
ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty
22
phase.
This was raised,
23
appeal,
and the Court was very specific in their
24
language.
25
entitled to have the jurors consider his low I.Q.,
26
yet this,
27
counsel,
28
This was the only claim where even a slight bit of
29
information before the Louisiana Supreme Court,
30
they did not hear what your Honor heard this week.
31
32
They said,
um,
"Mr.
on Mr.
Lacaze's direct
Lacaze was absolutely
like other questions about performance of
cannot be resolved on the present record."
This Court heard extensively about
Mr.
Lacaze's intellectual deficits,
70
both from
but
I'm not gonna
1
family members and expert witnesses.
2
attempt to re-create it,
3
critical to present to the jury and answer the
4
question of how Rogers could have been manipulated
5
and set up by Antoinette Frank,
6
been her mark,
7
whether they would sentence him to live or sentence
8
him to die.
but this testimony was
how he could have
and answer the ultimate question of
What we see in this case is a Defense attorney
9
10
who fundamentally did not understand the basics of
11
how to try a capital case,
12
included having your client evaluated by an expert.
As we heard from Mr.
13
which would have
Trenticosta,
on the night
14
that Rogers was convicted of first-degree murder,
15
Willie Turk frantically called him for the first
16
time and asked him what evidence he was supposed to
17
put on'in the penalty phase.
18
would come and testify about the death penalty.
19
Mr.
20
that would not be proper testimony at the penalty
21
phase of a capital trial.
22
11th hour,
23
basics of mitigating circumstances and make
24
suggestions about witnesses,
25
for any real help.
He asked him if he
Trenticosta had to explain to Mr.
Mr.
Turk that
Trying to help in the
Trenticosta could only explain the
but it was too late
Absent the testimony of experts like
26
27
Dr.
Woods,
like Mr.
28
like Ms.
29
to present a very distorted picture of
30
Rogers Lacaze to this jury.
31
about how Rogers Lacaze relied on others to protect
32
him,
Mack,
Lacaze1s teacher,
like Ms.
like his brother,
White,
Bierria,
the State was able
The jury never heard
Michael.
71
Ms.
They never heard
They
1
that Rogers was the last one off the porch.
2
never heard about how Rogers looked to children far
3
younger than him to lead him.
4
about how Rogers attempted to mask his many
5
intellectual deficits and where his support system
6
simply wasn't equipped to help him through.
7
never heard that he was a person with an I.Q.
8
71,
9
counsel bothered to have him evaluated.
They
of
which would have been easily ascertainable had
We've raised ineffective assistance of counsel
10
We have also raised a straight
at penalty phase.
11
12
They never heard
~
up Atkins claim,
and I
would point out to the Court
(C), whether post-conviction or
13
that under 905.5.1
14
at trial,
15
retardation is a preponderance of the evidence.
16
have established this by a preponderance of the
17
evidence.
18
,I
the standard for proof of mental
We
will now move to ineffective assistance of
19
counsel for failure to litigate a Motion to
20
Suppress Statements.
21
issue that was not raised on direct appeal.
22
being raised for the first
23
THE COURT:
24
Well,
see,
Again,
your Honor,
this is an
It is
time.
one of the reasons I
mentioned what
25
I
26
earlier part of the opinion Justice Traylor said
27
that that was really without merit,
28
been permitted to adopt Antoinette Frank's motions
29
and,
30
was strategic reasons for it and so forth.
31
don't remember that?
32
MS.
did this morning,
therefore,
it seemed to me that in the
because he had
that met the standard,
TAPLIN:
72
and there
You
Well,
1
and if I
could be clear,
we are not
2
alleging that Mr.
Turk did not raise the issue of
3
suppression of statements.
4
hearing on it.
5
very evidence that your Honor heard this week about
6
Mr.
7
have been critical to winning a motion to suppress.
8
So that is the issue that we're putting before this
9
Court,
Urn,
He did.
There was a
but that he did not present the
Lacaze's intellectual deficits,
which would
and that is the evidence that wasn't before
10
the Louisiana Supreme Court.
11
critical to present to a jury to answer the single
12
question,
13
something that he didn't do,
14
critical to present to the Court on a motion to
15
suppress.
why would Mr.
This evidence was
Lacaze admit to doing
but it was also
Even taking this intellectual deficits issue
16
17
aside,
18
incomplete.
19
suppression hearing,
20
Detective Demma and from Detective Rantz today,
21
Mr.
22
deficits,
23
Patrick Young for an unknown period of time that
24
was unrecorded and not even documented in the
25
police report.
26
pause,
27
in this case,
Lacaze,
the Miranda warnings were
Not all of the officers testified at
and as your Honor heard from
18 years old with intellectual
was left alone in a room with
And I hope that gives this Court
because it gives me pause.
But what was completely missing from the
28
litigation of the motion to suppress,
29
that testimony,
30
mental deficiencies to explain why an 18-year-old
31
who was not involved in the shootings would be
32
susceptible to making the statement saying he was
aside from
was the assessments of Mr.
73
Lacaze's
Despite glaring indications
1
present on the scene.
2
that his client suffered from intellectual
3
deficits r Mr.
4
evaluated and never presented this evidence before
5
the Court or before the jury.
Turk never bothered to have him
I will now move to ineffective assistance of
6
7
counsel for failure to investigate alternate
8
suspects.
9
appeal.
Again r this was not raised on direct
This wasn1t raised on direct appeal
10
because I
think as your Honor is aware r there's
11
virtually nothing in this record that refers to
12
Adam Frank.
13
essentially an investigation that Willie Turk never
14
performed.
15
In 1995 Willie Turk's only real effort to put an
16
alternate suspect into the minds of jurors was to
17
simply mention it in argument.
18
by virtually no evidence.
19
virtually none.
20
witnesses about Adam Frank.
21
interviewed Police Officers Stanley Morlier or
22
John Landry but instead called them blindly to the
23
stand and allowed them to lie without impeachment.
We1ve attempted to re-create
UnfortunatelYr
Mr.
now i t ' s 18 years later.
That was followed
Some evidence r but
Turk never interviewed any
Mr.
Turk never
I want to point your Honor to the
24
25
juxtaposition of Officer Morlier's testimony and
26
Investigator Thomas'
27
Ms.
28
Willie Turk could have done had he employed an
29
investigator who would have interviewed
30
Stanley Morlier.
31
and lied to this Court for the second time in
32
Rogers Lacaze's trial.
Thomas'
testimony this week.
testimony last week is telling of what
Stanley Morlier got on the stand
Under pressure r
74
1
Officer Morlier admitted to some things.
2
admitted that he thought Adam Frank was involved
3
in this crime.
4
confidential informant to try and find him.
5
admitted that Adam was thrown out of the
6
restaurant by him and Ronnie Williams.
7
admitted that Antoinette Frank threatened to kill
8
Ronnie Williams.
9
things.
He
He admitted that he had used a
He
He
But he also denied a great many
He allowed Ms.
Thomas to tell this Court
10
exactly what Officer Morlier had told her,
11
how Officer Morlier bragged about being able to
12
swing trials in whatever direction he wanted.
13
None of the things I
just said were presented
14
to Mr.
15
Stanley Morlier had to offer went before the jury
16
in Mr.
17
attorney asking questions and a police officer
18
informing him that his questions had no merit.
19
Lacaze's jury.
about
Lacaze's case.
None of the information that
All they saw was an inept
Willie Turk also failed to utilize even the
20
documents that he had in his file.
21
called any of the individuals who appeared on
22
Antoinette Frank's call log.
23
have noticed a call from Antoinette Frank to a home
24
in Rayville on March 2nd,
25
discovered that she placed a call to a short
26
teenager named Larone Pierre just 20 minutes after
27
calling Ron Williams.
28
investigate,
29
right across the street,
30
testified to.
31
may have found the murder weapon in this case.
32
don't know how much Willie Turk would have found,
He never
If he had,
1995.
he would
He would have
If he bothered to
he could have found Adam Frank merely
as Officer Fleming
He may have found Mr.
75
Pierre,
and he
We
1
because he never tried.
In order to demonstrate that he was
2
3
prejudiced,
Mr.
Lacaze need only show that there is
4
a
5
unprofessional errors,
6
proceedings would have been different.
7
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient
8
to undermine confidence in the outcome.
reasonable probability that but for counsel's
the result of the
A
This Court must take into account both
9
10
evidence that was suppressed by the State at trial
11
and the evidence that was not presented by
12
ineffective counsel.
The State's decision to call
13
Adam Frank yesterday,
I
14
a confession that the evidence that we presented in
15
our case in chief,
16
Stricklin claims,
17
the outcome.
18
criminal to come in and attempt to rebut this
19
testimony,
20
As a
21
believed whole cloth that he didn't commit this
22
crime,
23
confidence in the outcome of this trial.
24
further demonstrates the need for a new trial where
25
all of the evidence can be considered.
believe,
was tantamount to
the combination of the Brady and
undermined their confidence in
So they reached out to a
confessed
to restore confidence in this outcome.
legal matter,
even if Adam Frank were to be
this post-trial evidence cannot restore
It only
But even assuming the State's legal theory
26
27
that new witnesses could restore confidence in the
28
outcome,
29
The State is essentially asking this Court to set
30
aside all of the evidence suppressed at trial,
31
evidence that trial counsel had and didn't utilize
32
also,
Adam Frank's testimony surely doesn't.
and rely on the testimony of a manifestly
76
1
unreliable person, Antoinette Frank's brother,
her
2
protector,
3
was a fugitive from the law at the time of this
4
crime,
5
9 millimeter Beretta from Antoinette Frank in
6
January,
7
would have reported the same gun stolen only two
8
weeks before these murders.
9
carried around this gun for years,
someone who admitted on direct that he
someone who testified that he got a
raising questions as to why Ms.
Frank
He testified that he
or he had this
10
gun for years,
11
Testified that he had the gun that the State has
12
asserted both in these proceedings and time and
13
time again at Antoinette Frank's trial was the
14
likely murder weapon in this case.
15
admitted to wearing body armor and carrying a
16
police radio,
17
first denied being in New Orleans in 1995 but then
18
said he visited his sister in January,
19
testimony was contradicted by the State's own
20
witness,
21
said that he saw Adam Frank in New Orleans at the
22
gas station maybe two or three weeks before the
23
murders.
24
yet said that it was broken.
as he said on direct,
Quoc Vu,
He's a man who
a man who had
a man whose
who they put on on Monday who
This is a man who tried to present a bogus
25
alibi to this Court,
which was very quickly
26
contradicted by the pleadings of Defense counsel
27
and the records put before this Court.
28
man who testified that he was in Rayville in 1995,
29
a small town,
30
Antoinette Frank called on March 2nd,
31
with a history of brutalizing police officers,
32
you heard from Officer Fleming;
This is a
the very same town that
77
1995;
a man
as
a man who bragged
1
about killing a New Orleans police officer,
2
also heard from Officer Fleming and saw in records
3
put before this Court;
4
stand that he never sought a deal from the District
5
Attorney,
6
requests for assistance in exchange for
7
information.
8
leniency from the District Attorney.
9
never bragging about killing Officer Williams,
a man who denied on the
only to be confronted with numerous
Adam Frank lied about never seeking
He lied about
10
he lied about not being involved.
11
does not restore confidence in the outcome.
12
only undermines it.
and
His testimony
I want to speak briefly about Mr.
13
as you
It
Turk's
14
ineffectiveness for failure to investigate the gun
15
that was given to Antoinette Frank.
16
no attempt to find documentation of the likely
17
murder weapon.
He made no inquiries at the
18
property room.
He did not speak to police
19
officers.
20
discover that Ms.
21
guns from the property room.
22
allowed the State to argue to the jury that it was
23
Rogers who had the 9 millimeter,
24
who shot Ron Williams,
25
over Ha and Cuong Vu and executed them.
Now,
26
Mr.
He did not subpoena records.
Mr.
Turk made
He did not
Frank had attempted to get other
He did nothing and
that it was Rogers
that it was Rogers who stood
Turk's failure to discover this
27
evidence that the State hid does not excuse their
28
Brady violation,
29
Mr.
30
trial was violated.
31
32
but either way you cut it,
Lacaze's basic right to due process and a fair
I'm now gonna turn to the State's suppression
of evidence.
These are all of our Brady claims in
78
1
this case,
2
Louisiana Supreme Court simply because this
3
information was not known until post conviction.
4
As this Court knows,
5
supported by documentary evidence,
6
testimony,
7
little testimony this week on Mr.
8
claims.
9
Stanley Morlier,
10
11
none of which were presented to the
most Brady claims are
not by
so this Court's actually heard very
Lacaze's Brady
But your Honor was able to hear from
whose testimony not only supports
both a Brady claim but an Atkins claim.
At Rogers Lacaze's trial,
Officer Morlier was
12
called by Willie Turk and was asked if he
13
witnessed an altercation between Adam Frank and
14
Ronald Williams.
15
was asked if he ever witnessed Antoinette Frank
16
threaten to kill Ronald Williams in Ron Williams'
17
presence.
18
Officer Morlier was called by the State at
19
Antoinette Frank's trial.
20
same question,
21
about how he and Ronnie had to kick Adam Frank
22
out of the Kim Anh Restaurant,
23
Antoinette Frank threatened to kill Ronnie if he
24
ever messed with her brother again.
25
He said,
He said,
"no."
Officer Morlier
Two months later
"no."
When asked virtually the
Officer Morlier testified at length
about how
The State has tried to explain this in
26
briefing by saying that Officer Morlier's testimony
27
at trial was technically accurate because
28
Willie Turk was not asking the right questions.
29
The State argued that Officer Morlier answered,
30
quote,
31
albeit,
32
preferred." Officer Morlier did hear Antoinette
"Defense counsel's questions directly,
not in the way counsel would have
79
1
threat-
-- Antoinette threaten to kill
2
Ron Williams,
3
in Ron Williams'
4
technically accurate.
5
Officer Morlier didn't witness an altercation so
6
much as I believe they described it as a beef.
7
Officer Morlier's testimony was clearly false.
8
Regardless,
9
not required to mandate reversal.
but as the State argues,
presence,
so,
it wasn't
therefore,
this was
The State argues that
an outright lie does not require -- is
Courts will not
10
tolerate prosecutorial participation in technically
11
correct yet seriously misleading testimony.
12
This Court was also able to hear out of
13
Officer Morlier's mouth much more than even what he
14
testified to at Antoinette Frank's trial.
15
he testified that he believed that Adam Frank was
16
somehow involved,
17
him down,
18
that C.I. was able to locate Adam Frank in Northern
19
Louisiana,
20
detective -- excuse me,
21
Detective Richie Marino,
22
knows,
23
investigation in this case,
24
nowhere in the entire file.
25
Again,
that he was using a C.I.
to track
that he believed that that -- sorry,
that
that he gave a statement to homicide
Public Integrity Division
who was,
as your Honor
very carefully involved in the homicide
yet that is reflected
Officer Morlier's position as an investigator
26
in this homicide,
or lack thereof,
27
irrelevant to the Court's Brady analysis,
28
not even gonna discuss it except to say that the
29
State's efforts to distance themselves from
30
Officer Morlier at this hearing,
31
critical witnesses at Antoinette Frank's trial,
32
telling.
80
is completely
so I'm
one of their
is
What else was not included in the homicide
1
2
file of this case,
an interview with
3
Officer David Talley,
4
Exhibit D-16.
5
included in the file,
6
extensively about Adam Frank.
7
Adam Frank is.
8
security details.
9
ejected from the Kim Anh Restaurant by
and that's,
I believe,
In this interview that's not
Officer Talley is questioned
He's asked where
He's asked if Adam Frank worked
He's asked if Adam Frank was
10
Ronnie Williams.
11
threatened to kill Ronnie Williams.
12
Antoinette Frank ever got guns for her brother,
13
Adam.
14
Adam her 9 millimeter.
15
He's asked if Antoinette Frank
He's asked if
He's asked if Antoinette Frank ever gave
Armed with these materials and armed with the
16
testimony of Stanley Morlier,
effective counsel
17
could have put on a Defense for Rogers Lacaze.
18
Effective counsel could have used this information
19
to aid in his own investigation,
20
certainly lacking.
21
used this information to point to the shortcomings
22
in the NOPD's investigation,
23
saw that demonstrated with Officer Demma and
24
Officer Rantz,
25
Now,
which was
Effective counsel could have
and I
think this Court
both today and yesterday.
Rogers Lacaze didn't have effective
26
counsel,
but that doesn't free the State of its
27
duty to disclose.
28
carefully at the Kyles decision,
29
the materiality of this kind of evidence.
30
explains how the Defense would have been able to
31
marshal the evidence that police ultimately
32
abandoned their investigation into a likely suspect
I would ask this Court to look
81
which describes
Kyles
1
and laid the foundation for a vigorous argument
2
that police had been guilty of negligence.
3
counsel could have cross-examined the police
4
officers for failing to even consider an alternate
5
suspect1s possible guilt.
6
serious questions about,
7
and even good faith of the police investigation and
8
allowed the Defense to attack the investigation as
9
shoddy."
10
"Defense
This would have raised
quote,
"the thoroughness
That is exactly what Kyles tells us about
the materiality of this kind of evidence.
Turning now to the suppression of statements
11
I will only address this briefly,
12
of eyewitnesses.
13
but your Honor has already read the entire
14
statement of Chau Vu that was not disclosed to
15
Defense counsel.
16
statement makes clear that Ms.
17
male perpetrator that night.
18
testified for the first time that she saw
19
Rogers Lacaze as she hid in the cooler.
20
the very kind of exculpatory material that the
21
State was lambasted by the United States Supreme
22
Court for failing to turn over in the Juan Smith
23
case.
24
had previously stated that she did not see the male
25
perpetrator,
26
a different light,
27
confidence in the outcome of the trial.
28
Any reading of that entire
Vu did not see any
Yet at trial,
she
This is
Had the jury heard the State's star witness
it would have put the entire case into
so as to undermine the
This Court has also heard evidence for the
29
first time this week from Vui Vu,
30
that she was shown a lineup with Rogers Lacaze and
31
did not identify him.
32
it insignificant that two out of the three
Now,
82
as I
discussed,
Officer Demma may find
1
eyewitnesses didn1t identify Rogers Lacaze,
2
would state otherwise,
3
have recognized that had it been presented to them.
4
but I
and a jury certainly would
We addressed the gun as an ineffective
5
assistance of counsel claim,
but it1s obviously
6
also a Brady claim.
7
voluminous records that documented
8
Antoinette Frank's efforts to secure a 9 millimeter
9
weapon,
The State suppressed
the same 9 millimeter weapon that was found
10
on her brother three years later,
11
9 millimeter weapon that she dubiously reported
12
stolen only two weeks before this crime.
13
evidence not only demonstrated who had the gun but
14
who was pulling the strings,
15
offense,
16
try to get more guns,
17
out of the property room through Court orders,
18
challenging the State's narrative at both the
19
culpability and the penalty phases that Rogers
20
Lacaze had the 9 millimeter,
21
was the mastermind of this notorious crime.
22
the same
This
who was planning this
who was going back to the evidence room to
who was getting guns checked
that Rogers at age 18
Police reports are supposed to be an historic
23
record of an investigation.
24
live on for decades.
25
complete and accurate account of everything that
26
has happened in an investigation.
27
Court sees in the police report in this case,
28
what it saw with the testimony of Detective Demma
29
and Detective Rantz,
30
was left out.
31
witnesses didn1t identify Rogers Lacaze,
32
that Rogers Lacaze was interrogated alone by
In a murder case they
They1re supposed to be a
Yet,
what this
and
is that critical information
No mention that two out of the three
83
no mention
1
Detective Young before he made a taped statement
r
2
no mention of information involving Adam Frank,
the
3
victim,
4
made on the victim,
5
that they did know this information.
6
disclosed exculpatory evidence to effective
7
counsel,
8
Rogers Lacaze would have been exposed for what it
9
really was,
or death threats that Antoinette Frank had
Had the State
the police investigation against
a rush job where evidence that did not
10
fit
11
hidden away.
into a certain narrative was disregarded or
Your Honor,
12
although the officers admitted
I've only addressed a portion of
13
the claims that we have presented.
14
we ask for is not Herculean.
15
does not need to reach the ultimate question of
16
actual innocence.
17
to reach the question of complete exemption from
18
the death penalty because Mr.
19
retarded.
20
was a fair proceeding with an outcome which this
21
Court could have confidence in.
22
even squinting one's eyes and holding one's nose,
23
this proceeding was not.
24
set it for a new trial,
25
Honor,
26
THE COURT:
28
please.
29
MR.
30
The Court can but
The Court can but does not need
Lacaze was mentally
The most basic question is whether this
under any measure,
The simplest thing is to
and we thank your
your
for your consideration.
Thank you.
27
The relief that
Mr.
Pickett or Mr.
Kirkham,
PICKETT:
Thank you very much r your Honor.
And again,
31
like Ms.
32
State's response addresses sufficiently most of the
Taplin,
I will address only -- I
84
think the
claims raised by Mr.
2
that evidence and testimony which was adduced over
3
the last,
4
and then I want to first start out by correcting
5
opposing counsel's apparent misunderstanding of the
6
law.
ah,
Lacaze.
I will only address
1
week and a half before this Court,
It is not the State's burden to restore
7
8
confidence in the outcome of Mr.
Lacaze's trial.
9
That is outrageous.
and he alone,
Mr.
Lacaze,
10
the entire burden to demonstrate a lack of
11
confidence in the burden.
12
ambiguity of the evidence adduced,
13
here,
14
So that
has
-- and any
ah,
presented
must resolve in favor of the State.
On the record that has been made both before
15
and during this hearing,
16
utterly failed to meet his burden under Article
17
930.2,
18
under any case,
19
brought a claim of demonstrating his entitlement to
20
post-conviction relief even -- either as to the
21
verdict of guilt or the sentence of death.
22
under Brady,
Mr.
Lacaze has simply and
under Stricklin,
Federal or State,
under Napue,
under which he
I will go briefly through the various claims
23
that he raised.
24
were the juror misconduct claims,
25
must first be noted -- and this is
26
briefly or pointed out in response that,
27
proper standard under which this claim must be
28
reviewed is the standard that was announced by the
29
Louisiana Supreme Court while this direct review --
30
or while Mr.
31
It wasn't announced in this case,
32
announced,
Ah,
the first claims discussed
um,
and,
ah,
it
this was
ah,
the
Lacaze's direct appeal was going on.
ah,
but it was
in a separate case during the course
85
1
of his direct appeal,
2
Louisiana law that law-enforcement officers were,
3
ah,
4
jurors.
per se'
Now,
5
and that reversed a previous
invalid or incompetent to sit as
the current law says and holds to this
6
day,
and the law that must be used in this case,
7
that like any other jurors,
8
employed by law enforcement must be assessed as to
9
whether the record demonstrates that they could
people associated or
10
fairly and impartially address and review the
11
evidence and render a fair verdict.
Victoria Mushatt testified that she was a NOPD
12
13
dispatcher.
14
uncontroverted.
However,
15
rely notes that,
ah -- it holds that,
16
the old standard,
17
quote --
18
or any law-enforcement officer is not competent."
19
Ms.
20
sworn officer.
21
any event,
22
and,
23
fair and impartial.
24
THE COURT:
That is true.
That is unin the case upon which we
even under
that only actively -- this was a
"actively employed criminal deputy sheriff
Mushatt was a civilian employee.
(A),
She was not a
She was not curbed by that law.
under the new law,
at trial,
In
she took the stand
she did say that she could be
I
think Ms.
Taplin --
Was it disclosed in her voir dire,
25
26
don't remember right now,
27
-- as a dispatcher?
28
MR.
29
is
which I
that she worked for the
PICKETT:
I believe the record is silent as to that.
I
30
don't believe it was disclosed.
31
she said here in
32
without any equivocation was that her employment by
thi~
In any event,
what
hearing on the very first day
86
1
NOPD had no bearing whatsoever on her decision,
2
she affirmed,
3
guilty was based on the strength of the State's
4
evidence.
5
Now,
in fact,
ah,
that her decision to vote
opposing counsel noted,
urn -- I want
6
to say,
7
opposing counsel,
8
stated that a Trial Court's refusal to excuse a
9
prospective juror for cause is not abuse of
in contradiction to what was noted by
the Louisiana Supreme Court has
10
discretion,
11
voiced a seemingly biased opinion,
12
further examination and instruction the juror
13
demonstrates a willingness and ability to decide
14
the case impartially according to the law and
15
evidence.
16
heard from Mrs.
17
to vote guilty was based on the strength of the
18
State's evidence.
19
it was due to her employment on NOPD.
20
beyond that,
21
Ronnie Williams.
22
same sense -- and I
23
friends or don't like everyone who works in the
24
D.A. 's Office,
25
District Attorney who was murdered,
26
would be at the funeral.
27
I would not give whoever was eventually charged
28
with that crime a fair shake were I
29
juror.
30
and
notwithstanding that the juror has
when after
That was precisely the testimony you
Mushatt,
that her -- her decision
She specifically disavowed that
She stated
that she was not friends with
but
She attended his funeral
hate to admit,
~f
in the
I'm not exactly
there was an Assistant
you know I
That does not mean that
So there's no familial
chosen as a
-- familiar
31
friendly connection between Ms.
32
Officer Williams,
Mushatt and
and what it comes down to is she
87
1
stated clearly and without equivocation that her
2
employment by NOPD as a -- in a civilian capacity,
3
mind you -- had no bearing on her decision to vote
4
guilty,
5
State's evidence.
6
ambiguity as to whether that was the case,
7
must be -- that must mirror against Mr.
8
this matter as he has the burden to show --
9
THE COURT:
which was based on the strength of the
And even if there were to be
that
Lacaze in
Did the defendant exercise all of his
10
11
peremptory challenges,
12
MR.
PICKETT:
Honestly,
13
I
14
or do we know?
at this point -- I used to know that
cannot recall off the top of my head.
It will
15
probably come to me in a few minutes in the middle
16
of another argument.
17
THE COURT:
18
Okay.
19
20
21
22
MR.
PICKETT:
But right now,
honestly,
I
cannot recall off
the top of my head whether he did nor not.
David Settle really comes down to,
the
23
same issue.
24
employment in law enforcement,
25
law enforcement,
26
affirmed that in his statement of voir dire that
27
he'd be -- well,
28
concurrence of voir dire that he could be fair and
29
impartial as a
30
THE COURT:
31
32
Ah,
ah,
he explicitly testified that his
his relations with
did not affect his verdict.
He
not his statement but his
Was he a civilian employee?
established by the documentation,
88
Is that
or was he a
1
commissioned law-enforcement officer?
2
MR.
PICKETT:
I believe with the railroad police he was a
3
He said he had arrest
4
commissioned officer.
5
powers.
6
being a traffic officer,
7
ambiguous as to what he did,
8
me if he were a sworn officer,
9
that for a fact.
10
Urn,
as for records of the State Police,
as Ms.
Taplin before was
it would not surprise
but I
do not know
But the record as submitted
hopefully should clear that up.
In any event,
11
again,
he stated the strength of
12
the State's evidence was the reason that he voted
13
guilty,
14
that just by looking at the very strength of the
15
State's evidence.
And I will get to that in a
16
second,
think it is patently obvious
17
from the record.
ah,
although I
Ah,
18
and I
Ms.
think there was validation of
Garrett -- now,
obviously,
there was
19
no testimony from her at all.
Urn,
20
affidavit which was submitted,
and obviously there
21
was no one here to authenticate that affidavit.
22
think it should be given little if any weight,
23
whatever weight it's given,
all it states that she
24
was the victim of a crime.
She had a brother who
25
was murdered.
26
it affected her ability to be partial
27
affected her verdict.
28
Mr.
29
not good enough under 930.2.
30
Lacaze,
there's an
you know
32
no harm,
but
Nowhere in there does it state that
Again,
that's ambiguous,
(sic)
or it
at best for
and that is simply
So as to the jury misconduct claims,
31
I
there is,
the law operates under the principle of
no foul,
and there clearly was no harm
89
Ah,
you had two jurors who came in here and
1
here.
2
took the stand and said,
3
enforcement to whatever degree had no effect on my
4
verdict.
5
the State's evidence at trial.
6
ah,
Mr.
My verdict was based on the strength of
As to that claim,
Lacaze is not entitled to relief.
Moving on to what I
7
my association with law
8
gun,
the gun,
9
two guns.
ah -- well,
refer to as the mystery
which could be mystery
This is the gun,
ah,
that Ms.
10
ended up to -- ended up with through,
11
NOPD Property Room,
12
Property,
13
when he was arrested in 1998 in Richland Parish or,
14
I believe,
15
Now,
16
evidence brought to this Court that those two are
17
the same weapon.
18
still means absolutely nothing.
19
shred of evidence.
20
has been presented that Adam Frank was anywhere
21
near New Orleans or at the Kim Anh Restaurant on
22
March 4th,
23
from the
from Central Evidence and
and a gun that was found with Adam Frank
actually within the City of Monroe.
obviously,
Ah,
ah,
Frank
there's been no affirmative
If it was the same weapon,
it
There's not a
Not a single shred of evidence
1995.
but again,
there's no evidence that that
24
weapon found with Rogers or with Adam Frank in 1998
25
was even the gun that his sister obtained from the
26
property room,
27
Antoinette Frank,
28
involved,
29
enough for Mr.
30
she had a brother that she cared for,
31
stuck up for,
32
count on an inferential leap that Adam Frank
and -- and as far as the gun impacts
there's no question that she was
but guilt by association is simply not
Lacaze in this case.
urn,
The fact that
that she
does -- they can't simply just
90
1
committed a murder without any evidence whatsoever
2
to support even his presence within the Parish of
3
Orleans at that time.
4
-- the fact that there's no evidence that was the
5
gun blows a very big hole in their theory that --
6
that Adam Frank,
7
that's one of the,
8
count against them is if -- they kind of -- they
9
went
urn,
I
I mean,
the gun,
I mean,
committed this murder,
think,
was
and
theories that should
they said too much.
10
It would have been enough certainly to state a
11
claim of post-conviction relief that our client did
12
not do this; we don't know who did,
13
did not do this.
14
They have actually put forward a theory,
15
affirmative theory,
16
that theory has been entirely unsupported,
17
think that must be counted against Mr.
18
has to be.
Now,
19
Well,
but our client
they have gone further.
an
that it was Adam Frank,
as to David Talley,
and
and I
Lacaze.
It
he came in here,
and
20
he testified he could not establish that Marullo
21
signed the order.
22
Judge Marullo stated that he didn't sign an order.
23
He also affirmed that he had absolutely no bias.
24
He's said that twice now,
25
Rogers Lacaze in that case,
26
rulings were based on any bias that he had against
27
Mr.
28
courtesy of the Petitioner's counsel,
29
in-chambers conference from the Frank trial where
30
Judge Marullo puts on the record that a handwriting
31
exemplar has shown that his signature,
32
signatures of Judge Morris Reed and possibly
Lacaze.
Urn,
He never saw him do it.
no bias against
that none of his
and also included in the record,
91
is the
along with
1
Calvin Johnson,
2
orders for weapons from the property room of the
3
courthouse or C.
Now,
4
were forged on various release
and
E.
-- or NOPD,
and Ms.
which one.
Taplin noted that it
5
doesnlt matter whether he actually signed the order
6
because he was -- his -- he was ambiguously
7
involved in this incident.
8
recused because of -- and I'm not even entirely
9
sure what.
He should have been
lIve heard several things,
but I
10
they still actually have not stated what the basis
11
for his recusal are -- is.
12
Marullo have in the case because his name may have
13
been forged or because he may have even signed the
14
order giving a gun to an officer,
15
is not a routine practice.
16
never,
17
professional practice,
18
an order giving a gun to an officer.
19
stated,
20
to give to another officer to give to -- to give a
21
gun to another -- another officer.
22
that he would have most likely signed an order
23
releasing the gun to Antoinette Frank had she come
24
to him directly,
25
through,
26
this case,
27
her.
28
testimony in that regard.
29
What interest did
which he stated
He also stated that he
as a matter of principle,
as a matter of
never would indirectly sign
He -- as he
I would never sign an order to one officer
Ah,
I guess,
but he never,
ah,
He admitted
would do it
what is the version of hearsay in
through three different people to get to
and there's no basis not to credit his
But even -- even if he did sign the order
30
giving her the gun,
31
case?
32
counsel has yet to actually vocalize.
what does that matter in this
There is one thing throughout that opposing
92
Theylve kind
1
of spoken around it,
but they've never hit the nail
2
on the head as to what the interest and the basis
3
for recusal is.
4
the subject of a P.I.B.
5
had a
6
He was not,
as they referred to him last week,
7
investi-
the Judge,
8
various other capacities.
9
As he called it,
He was never
He wasn't a witness.
investigation.
He never
-- he never investigated anything himself.
the investigator,
the
ah,
He was simply the Judge.
the umpire.
And like any umpire
And the --
10
should,
11
the interest -- you could tell -- you know,
12
testimony made it obvious that the gun issue wasn't
13
even on his mind,
14
to me that this had any basis for his recusal or
15
make him in any way impartial.
I
16
he refereed the case fairly.
his
and yet it still is fascinating
think having beat that -- that horse enough,
17
um,
18
And I've already addressed one of the Brady claims,
19
you know,
20
Adam Frank was involved.
21
had heard a single shred of evidence regarding
22
Adam Frank's involvement in this case,
23
would be very shocked.
24
lId like to address briefly his Brady claims.
Um,
the State withheld evidence that
Obviously,
if this case
I
-- I
I
I haven't heard any.
they called Perry Fleming who admitted he
25
had no firsthand knowledge of the murder,
26
Adam Frank was not arrested for the murder of
27
Ronnie Williams.
28
location of Adam Frank on March 4th,
29
and presented telephone records that offer
30
absolutely no proof that Antoinette Frank called
31
Adam Frank,
32
just speculation,
ah,
that
He did not know Adam Frank,
1995,
on March 2nd of 1995.
and for Mr.
93
Frank's,
and --
Again,
ah,
the
it's
----------
1
Mr.
Lacaze's purposes,
he requires more than just
2
speculation unsupported by any other evidence in
3
order to demonstrate his entitlement to relief.
Stanley Morlier testified that he had spec-
4
5
he had suspicions,
urn,
that Adam Frank must have
6
been involved in the case.
7
interestingly,
8
that it was minorly.
9
holding -- he would have been holding the door.
Now,
what he did say,
was that if he was involved,
I
he felt
think he said that he was
10
But even then,
he had suspicions.
11
present any evidence whatsoever.
12
approached Officers,
13
or any eyewitness who spoke to Demma or Rantz
14
regarding these suspicions,
15
this day 18 years later,
16
of evidence to support his suspicions.
ah,
He didn't
He never
Detectives Demma or Rantz
and -- and -- and to
there's not been a shred
As -- as Detectives Demma and Rantz each
17
18
testified,
19
protocol that
20
know,
21
suspicions,
22
again,
23
not a single shred of evidence that Adam Frank
24
committed this crime.
25
attack it or however many witnesses or whatever
26
piece of evidence -- well,
27
Urn,
28
Morlier,
29
is -- is ambiguous,
30
Detective Rantz or Demma have believed him had he
31
come to them with anything?
32
there is no part of proper police
requi~es
them to chase down,
you
any wild goose chase or any -- any
lead,
that they may be given.
I keep -- I keep having -- you know,
And
there's
No matter how many ways they
there is no evidence.
if -- if Angelique Thomas showed anything about
Urn,
urn,
it's that,
I mean,
you know,
his reliability
and so certainly why should
the Defense is asking the Court to
94
1
discredit the testimony in evidence not because
2
it's inherently suspect or incredible,
3
there's other evidence that they think that
4
controverts it.
5
discredit the State's evidence simply because it
6
goes against their theory,
7
don't have the burden just to show there might be
8
other evidence,
9
have to show that based on that,
Urn,
because
they're asking the Court to
but the problem is,
which they haven't shown.
they
They
had that evidence
10
been presented,
11
State's evidence in light of that would have been
12
unreasonable,
13
simply can't do that.
14
actually present any evidence.
And I
15
Taplin,
the fury's determination to credit
would have been irrational.
Firstly,
And they
because they don't
find it interesting that
-- that
16
Ms.
in asking Eddie Rantz whether
17
David Talley was ever -- during David Talley's
18
statement whether Adam Frank was ever -- he was
19
ever asked about -- as if to suggest,
20
was someone that NOPD thought was the suspect --
21
she didn't ask him -- she didn't give the answer.
22
I
23
David Talley gave
24
whether he knew that Adam Frank had ever obtained a
25
gun through Antoinette Frank,
26
their theory -- was
27
stated,
28
quote but to paraphrase,
29
investigate further when the person who would know
30
best,
31
vault and admitted that Antoinette Frank could have
32
gotten a gun,
had to give him the answer
well,
I'
the question was
which is the key for
and Detective Rantz
that ends it.
David TalleYI
this
'cause the answer that
specifically,
"no,
look,
I
mean,
not his direct
there was no reason to
who's in charge of the gun
but said he had no -- no evidence at
95
1
all that Antoinette had ever gotten a gun for
2
Adam Frank,
3
was,
4
of obtaining a gun.
he'd never -- he knew who Adam Frank
but he'd never become involved in the question
Again,
5
they can speculate all they want.
6
That's fine.
That's what they've been doing for
7
the last nine,
8
evidence to support it,
9
trial the State needed to present the evidence.
ten days,
but there's just simply no
you know.
10
Now the role is reversed.
11
evidence,
In this -- at
They have to present
and they have just failed to do it.
Moving on briefly to the ineffective
12
13
assistance of counsel claims,
14
Nicholas Trenticosta certainly,
15
defense attorney,
16
penalty is wrong.
17
getting Mr.
18
possible.
19
he only knows that Turk called him asking for
20
advice about the penalty phase the night before.
21
Ah,
22
in response to his suggestions.
23
testify whether Turk actually did follow his
24
advice,
25
unable to obtain witnesses.
He admitted he wasn't
26
there at the penalty phase.
I mean,
27
just more of a speculative witness.
28
-- you know,
29
there's a fire,
30
fire.
31
32
urn,
we heard from
the career capital
who admitted he thinks the death
He has clearly an interest in
Lacaze off death row by any means
He's clearly a biased witness,
ah,
yet
he doesn't remember any answers that Turk gave
He couldn't
whether he followed his advice and was
again,
he's
It's -- it's
they're hoping if there's enough smoke
but they need to actually produce
That's their burden.
Robert Jenkins came in here and very
graciously fell on his
swo~d
96
and called himself
1
ineffective in defending,
2
co-defendant.
3
complained about how rushed he felt to trial but at
4
the same time admitted,
5
that he moved for a speedy trial.
6
event,
7
his own performance -- and again,
8
objective test,
9
attorney's performance subjectively,
10
11
Urn,
ah,
Mr.
Lacaze's
interestingly,
he -- he
'cause he had to admit,
regardless of how Mr.
performance,
Urn,
But in any
Jenkins feels about
Stricklin is an
so any attorney's view of another
even his own
is -- is not relevant evidence.
what is a fact is that Robert Jenkins
a defendant,
Antoinette Frank,
12
defended a vic-
13
against whom the State brought essentially the same
14
evidence,
15
facts and the same occurrence,
16
additional months to prepare,
17
obtained the same result as Willie Turk.
18
we're at it,
19
Willie Turk's investigation.
20
all the time.
21
discussions with Willie Turk,
22
go into them that deeply.
He mentioned that Willie
23
Turk was concerned.
any Defense attorney,
24
lid imagine,
25
facing the death penalty is going to be somewhat
26
concerned at some point.
27
deficient
28
demonstrate prejudice.
29
I
the same witnesses,
was based on the same
but he had two
and guess what?
He
And while
he also stated he could not speak for
He was not around him
He mentioned that there were
ah,
Well,
but he didn't really
who's defending a client who's
That is not equal to
a deficient performance let alone
think Ben Cohen hardly even needs to be
30
addressed.
31
finally pressed by Mr.
32
talked around the issue and tried to evade it at
He admitted he was biased once he was
Kirkham.
97
He -- he kind of
Ah,
but he admitted that he was biased.
I
1
first,
2
mean,
3
-- and also conveniently works for the exact same
4
people who are representing Lacaze right now.
5
mean,
6
Court would give to that testimony,
7
since he can't speak to what Turk did because,
8
me,
9
trial.
his true colors shown through in the end and
I
I
can't imagine any credible weight this
especially
like
he was probably in diapers at the time of
Now,
10
ah,
Vui Vu certainly -- yeah,
11
testified to what she testified,
12
have two competing witnesses.
13
first of all said that she didn't see anything.
14
She could only see shadows.
15
saw was Antoinette Frank.
16
male perpetrator.
17
perpetrator.
18
male perpetrator.
19
she didn't see the crime.
20
saw the male perpetrator and picked someone else
21
who wasn't Lacaze.
22
see anything but a shadow,
23
described as a shadow of a male.
24
how someone looks at a shadow,
25
you're hiding in the back of a cooler,
26
whether i t ' s male or female,
27
some evidence that,
you know -- but all she says
28
is,
and it was a male shadow.
29
That's kind of suspect.
30
I
Obviously,
however,
31
said Ms. Vu,
32
cowering.
ah,
ah,
again,
She carne in.
we
She
The only person she
She could not see the
She could not describe the male
she could not identify the
She didn't say that she saw
She didn't say that she
She stated that she didn't even
saw a shadow,
Urn,
but,
she
and she -- what she
And I don't know
especially when
ah,
and can tell
unless there's
Quoc affirmatively carne in and
was in the back of the cooler
She was not near him and Chau except he
98
1
was walking back and forth,
but -- and -- and not
2
only did he say so,
3
photographs both where Vui was standing and -- and
4
the view he had/
5
could see out of the cooler.
6
that.
7
Rogers Lacaze.
8
And coming back to/
9
knew it was not Adam Frank.
he identified from the
and he unambiguously said that he
Not that -- not just
He saw the male perpetrator.
It was
He was a hundred percent certain.
ah,
the overarching theme,
he
'Cause how did
Why?
Built like a linebacker.
10
he describe Adam Frank?
11
And this Court saw that when they stood next to
12
each other.
13
Adam Frank and Rogers Lacaze?
Who in their right mind would confuse
Jennifer Dysart testified that as far as a
14
15
case of mistaken identity between the person who
16
was identified mistakenly and the actual suspect,
17
the greatest height difference that she saw in her
18
own experience as an expert -- lots of experience
19
in this case,
20
less than the height difference between Adam Frank
21
and Rogers Lacaze at that time and presumably now.
22
And she called that an outlier.
23
as to say a statistically insignificant,
24
definition,
25
significant.
26
18 years,
something like that -- was
She didn't go far
but by
an outlier is not statistically
So their own expert witness on identifications
27
who/
while we're at it,
this Court explicitly
28
forbade from testifying as to whether Quoc/
29
or John Ross'
30
even though they did try to backdoor as much of
31
that information as they could in/
32
the greatest height difference she had seen was
Chau's/
I.D.s were reliable or suggestive
99
ah/
stated that
1
greater than the height -- was less than the height
2
difference in this case.
3
more familiar that an eyewitness is with a person
4
the less likely they are to misidentify them.
5
other words,
6
is.
7
perpetrator on multiple times within the hour
8
before the incident that leads to the
9
identification is more likely to make a reliable
She also agreed that the
In
the more reliable the identification
She also said that a person who had seen a
Ah,
and this is a case where,
ah,
the time
10
I.D.
11
immediately preceding the incident that
12
Rogers Lacaze and Antoinette Frank were in the
13
restaurant,
14
eating while Quoc was out sweeping right next to
15
them.
16
He's familiar with Rogers Lacaze.
17
Adam Frank obviously.
they were there for about 15 minutes
He -- he -- he saw them.
He knew them.
He knew
This is not -- this was not even -- and this
18
19
is another reason that the State objected to her
20
being called as an expert on eyewitness
21
identifications.
22
case.
23
especially with John Ross who knew Adam,
24
Lacaze and his brother very well as regular
25
customers,
26
testimony that the more -- the more familiar an
27
eyewitness is with someone who they're identifying
28
the more reliable the I.D.
This is not an identification
This is a confirmation.
and again,
Same thing
ah,
Rogers
that goes to Dysart's
is.
29
And that really kind of mutes the importance
30
of Dysart's testimony because the great -- as she
31
acknowledged,
32
some exceptions focuses on stranger
the great bulk of her research with
100
This is not a stranger
1
identifications.
2
identification case.
3
that Chau Vu or Quoc Vu or especially John Ross had
4
seen Rogers Lacaze.
5
time
well,
6
time
that they had seen Adam Frank.
7
a stranger identification.
8
where the testimony of an eyewitness
9
identification -- identification expert really is
10
This is not the first time
Especially not the first
since they didn't see him this
This is not
This is not an area
gonna carry or should carry much weight.
Now,
11
I
Urn
guess while we're on the subject of
12
experts,
13
Rex Sparks.
14
disputing,
15
dispute George Woods'
16
psychiatrist, but the problem here for Dr.
17
that he was a psychiatrist in a battle that
18
revolved around psychology,
19
was not qualified to testify about psychological
20
testing and about psychological assessment,
21
the design or implementation of psychological
22
intelligence tests.
23
I want to talk about George Woods and
Ah,
ah,
now,
I
-- I'm -- I'm not really
and we didn't at -- at the hearing
qualifications as a
Woods is
and he admitted that he
about
The only psychologist that this Court heard
24
from was James Pinkston,
25
Now,
26
did not have to.
27
job was to critique the basis upon which Dr.
28
made his conclusions,
29
successfully.
30
George Woods relied heavily on Dr.
31
analysis.
32
call Dr.
yes,
was the State's witness.
he did not interview Rogers Lacaze.
We don't have the burden.
Ah,
His
Woods
and he critiqued them
he pointed out -- ah,
She was a psychologist.
Young,
He
Young'~
Why they didn't
we'd have to ask them.
101
and
I
think it
1
probably would have helped their case to have
2
called an actual psychologist when the issue was
3
psychology,
4
As Dr.
because that is objective.
Pinkston pointed out,
5
psychiatrist.
He's a physician.
6
helping clients.
7
assessment,
8
Dr.
9
evidence,
ah,
Dr.
Woods is a
His focus is on
It's not on taking an objective
which this kind of case calls for.
Young did a fantastic job of over emphasizing
of over hyping,
as it were,
ah,
tasks upon
10
which Lacaze did poorly,
almost suppressing
11
tests in which Lacaze did well,
even though the
12
tests on which Lacaze did well,
as Dr.
13
testified,
are more reliable for determining
14
functional
I.Q.
15
poorly.
16
Dr.
Pinkston
than the ones upon which he did
Of course,
Woods or by Dr.
that wasn't mentioned by either
Young.
Young's report was based not just on exams
17
18
that,
ah -- exams -- some of them were inadequate
19
to reach her conclusions in the outset.
20
those conclusions were reached,
21
incorrectly interpreted in order to support what
22
appears to be a predetermined diagnosis of mental
23
retardation.
24
report.
25
able to help the Defense.
they were
She was happy to be
an objective witness,
would say,
when
Young signed off her
It's very telling.
Now,
26
Note how Dr.
Ah,
as Dr.
Pinkston
27
said,
"Thank you for the opportunity of
28
working on this case.
29
help."
Not "I'm happy to help the Defense in this
30
case."
That is clearly -- and not talking her
31
qualifications as a psychologist,
32
had an interest in this case,
Let me know if I
102
can be of
but clearly she
and you don't have to
She admits
1
call her to examine her to tell that.
2
it.
Dr.
Pinkston
3
has no interest in how this case resolves.
He said
4
so.
She's happy to help the Defense.
Now,
5
and -- and I
I
think the testimony was
6
enough.
don't have to go into individual tests,
7
the -- the -- the TOMM and -- and the WAIS and all
8
that,
9
and this Court can review the testimony of
but I
think the record is sufficiently clear
10
Dr.
Pinkston and Dr.
11
another failure to -- to prove that Rogers Lacaze
12
is a person who suffers from mental retardation.
13
Ah,
in fact,
14
Dr.
Woods and Dr.
15
impaired.
16
is not retarded.
Ah,
17
Woods,
but clearly there was
the way that he was described most by
Young was in -- severely -- was
Impaired,
now,
as Dr.
Pinkston pointed out,
we've also learned other things about
18
Mr.
19
ability,
20
drugs,
21
young age.
22
run an illicit business.
23
his bank account than I do.
24
not the actions of someone who is adaptively just
25
incapable,
26
27
28
Lacaze's mental functioning,
his adaptive
beyond the fact that he's able to sell
ah,
beyond the fact that
He's able to,
and -- and at a
from a cell in death row,
Ah,
he has more money in
You know,
to use an unscientific term.
these are
These are
,people -- especially to do it from a cellon death
row requires significant adaptive functioning.
I mean,
their communications are -- you know,
29
we talked about kites,
illegal communications
30
between prisoners,
and by illegal,
31
against -- against prison rules,
32
statutorily illegal
ah,
but,
103
ah,
obviously,
not necessarily
to be able to do
1
that when certainly that's something that prison
2
officials are looking for -- they monitor mail,
3
stuff like that -- requires a level of adaptive
4
functioning that Mr.
5
Ah,
6
learn what he could do from prison and certainly
7
does not at all indicate that he is mentally
8
retarded.
9
Now,
Lacaze clearly demonstrates.
it -- i t ' s -- I was actually quite shocked to
he -- obviously,
there's a lot of talk
10
about what,
11
point -- and this wasn't obviously a litigated
12
issue before the actual hearing -- is a lot of talk
13
about what Mr.
14
you know what?
15
this again from before the hearing.
16
to know because the one person we're unable to hear
17
from is Willie Turk,
18
the State's position,
19
something that this Court should take into
20
consideration that they could put on as many
21
witnesses as they want to throw Willie Turk under
22
the bus,
23
buses
24
reprisal.
25
-- they could -- people could say anything,
26
they said a lot that
27
Court
28
THE COURT:
29
urn -- and the -- kind of the biggest
Turk didn't do or never did.
But
It's really -- and I'm gonna repeat
It's impossible
and that's really,
unfortunate,
and I
ah,
from
think it's
and they threw him under a whole fleet of
'cause they didn't have to fear about any
Ah,
they could put on people,
~as
not supported.
Ben Cohen
and
But this
~-
What makes you think he would have reacted
30
any differently than your characterization of
31
Mr.
32
have come in and fallen on his sword,
Jenkins'
testimony,
or do you think he would
104
too?
1
MR.
PICKETT:
I
2
can't say that.
That's the thing.
We have half the picture here.
3
know.
4
THE COURT:
And the other thing is,
5
I don't
is I
think you still
6
have a writ application pending in the Supreme
7
Court on that issue.
8
MR.
PICKETT:
Honestly,
9
this -- I'm just so kind of mentally
10
worn out from the last ten days I
11
right now.
12
THE COURT:
The,
13
14
MS.
ah
TAPLIN:
Your Honor,
15
16
Supreme Court.
17
MR.
19
that was denied by the Louisiana
PICKETT:
Urn,
18
can't remember
I believe it was denied.
THE COURT:
I understood that it was the stay that was
20
21
denied and not necessarily the merits.
22
thing?
23
MS.
TAPLIN:
The merits was denied.
24
25
THE COURT:
26
Okay.
27
28
MR.
Well,
that's what I
needed to know.
PICKETT:
If Ms.
Taplin says that,
29
to believe her.
30
moment.
31
THE COURT:
32
The whole
All right.
Honestly,
I
I
I
have no reason not
can't remember at the
just wanted to be sure,
105
'cause
1
I've been waiting -- since they waited to the day
2
before the hearing to let us know about the writ
3
that was filed in October,
4
when they would do the other one.
5
MR.
I
just was wondering
PICKETT:
I
6
-- actually,
your Honor,
now I
7
that the merits were denied as well.
8
THE COURT:
All right.
9
10
MR.
do believe
Okay.
PICKETT:
But in either event,
11
I
still think that went
12
to the admissibility -- that went to the ability to
13
proceed with this claim.
14
weight that should be given to that fact by this
15
Court,
16
We have -- quite frankly,
17
Mr.
18
tried to do,
19
thing is,
20
not equal i t ' s negative.
21
burden to prove that he didn't do this.
think it should be given some weight.
we have no idea what
Turk's investigation consisted of,
Now,
22
23
and I
That did not address the
what he didn't try to do.
what he
But the
lack of positive proof for a claim does
Again,
they have the
you've had a bunch of witnesses who said
they certainly didn't speak very highly of him,
24
but all of them said,
well,
I
can't speak to what
25
Willie did or didn't do in his investigation,
26
because I was not around him all of the time.
27
mean,
28
investigation isn't done running through courtrooms
29
and down the hallway so every other attorney in the
30
planet can see you do it.
31
other attorneys with you when you interview
32
witnesses unless they are,
I
much -- lid imagine much of counsel's
106
Urn,
you don't bring
you know,
your
So there was no way for these people
1
co-counsel.
2
to -- these -- these attorneys,
3
ah,
4
Willie Turk did or didn't do,
5
look at is the results of what happened at trial,
6
and as welve argued and continued to argue,
7
is,
8
testified -- and something very interesting I
9
noticed
Mr.
Jenkins,
Mr.
Trenticosta,
to be able to say really what
but what they can
this
you know -- and one thing -- John Reed
Icause he also gave a professional opinion,
10
ah -- that various parts of Willie Turk's
11
investigation and his preparation were not up to,
12
ah,
13
performance,
but he kept saying over and over
14
again,
I
15
him.
16
trial.
17
this would have been.
18
a determination this changed or there was a
19
reasonable probability that the failure of counsel
20
to do thi~ or that counsel's doing of this affected
21
the outcome of trial.
22
you know,
well,
I
reasonable standards of professional
can't really say if this prejudiced
really canlt say if this affected the
I
really canlt tell you what the effect of
In fact,
he never once made
That was never said.
Stricklin has two parts.
They have yet to --
23
even if they can arguably -- and i t ' s very arguable
24
-- establish deficient performance,
25
failed to present even any evidence of prejudice.
26
Quite frankly,
27
and remains so overwhelming that Perry Mason
28
himself could not have won this.
29
wouldnlt have taken it
30
innocent people.
31
present,
32
than the outcome that happened and the outcome that
they have
the evidence against Mr.
Lacaze was
In fact,
he
'cause he only represented
No lawyer living or dead,
past or
could have received a different outcome
107
1
Mr.
Lacaze deserved.
Just a few more points.
I'm almost done.
2
3
Ah r the penalty phase and mitigation part of this
4
trial r of courser
5
several witnesses r LaRhonda Whiter
6
Pamela Wynne r Gwen Bierria r who knew Rogers very
7
well growing up.
8
obviously have known him for a while r have a --
9
have a great interest in helping him.
ah r they -- they brought in
um r
Ah r these are people who
Um r they
10
they said a lot of things -- and this is certainly
11
not attacking them or presuming they are lying r but
12
they -- they said a lot of things that I
13
interesting in an attempt
14
mitigating circumstances r ah r both including and
15
not including the aspect of mental retardation.
found very
ah r to establish
tOr
Um r LaRhonda White testified that r ah r he grew
16
ah r certainly without a father -- i t ' s hardly
17
uPr
18
unique -- but with a hard-working r strict mother in
19
a neighborhood that had a lot of close-knit
20
families and nuclear families.
Ah r he was teased
21
as a kid.
I was.
22
doesn't turn you into a killer.
23
I meanr
who wasn't?
Ah r also mentioned that her
That
ah r sold drugs.
24
Ah r didn't indicate that anyone forced him to do
25
that or made him do that.
26
brother r but no indication that Michael Lacaze
27
dragged him into that kicking and screaming.
28
There's a lot of ques-
29
timidity and his willingness to be or ability to be
30
dominated by others,
31
obviously,
32
really was,
I
think,
ah,
He worked with his
-- testimony about his
and that was an attempt,
to show that Antoinette Frank
the one who,
108
ah,
who led his hand
1
during this.
Which -- which leads to an interesting
2
3
conundrum in the case.
4
O. J.
IIWell,
if I did it. II
5
completely innocent.
I was at Mr.
6
didn't
7
think they should have it one way or the other.
8
we're making a factual assertion he wasn't there,
9
don't make a factual assertion,
10
11
Simpson,
(sic),
It's kind of the
CiS.
I wasn't responsible.
But if I
Urn,
I really
III was there,
but I
I was not responsible. II
However,
they relied a lot on Frank's
12
psychological reports,
13
large number of bad qualities that make her
14
completely unfit to be a police officer,
15
once in those reports is she -- is she listed or
16
described as being manipulative or domineering or
17
controlling.
18
timid police officer,
19
She -- this is not a woman who led him around by
20
the hand.
21
responsibility was in this case is really
22
guess will never be known.
23
speculated.
24"
Rogers Lacaze was not a full and a willing
25
participant in the robbery of the Kim Anh
26
Restaurant.
27
If
In fact,
that -- and they display a
but not
she was described as being a
afraid to pull the trigger.
What exactly the breakdown of
I
It can only be
But there is no evidence that
And here's one thing they cannot get around,
28
every witness agrees on,
29
to contradict.
30
Officer Williams in the front area dining room
31
behind the bar of the restaurant were fired,
32
Antoinette Frank was in the kitchen,
and there is no evidence
When the gunshots that felled
109
so says
Vui Vu didn't say
1
Chau Vu,
2
anything.
3
Ronald Williams based on what we have seen so far
4
here.
5
least one person,
6
They cannot get around that fact.
7
he was timid.
8
There's no evidence that Antoinette Frank was there
9
pulling it for him.
10
so says Quoc Vu.
Antoinette Frank did not murder
So he killed at
It had to be Rogers Lacaze.
and,
it wasn't Adam Frank.
no,
'"
They want to say
He pulled the trigger willingly.
She wasn't even in the same
room.
11
So -- and -- and the -- whatever mitigating
12
evidence might have -- and what it comes down to
13
really is whatever mitigating evidence might have
14
been introduced in this case,
15
insufficient
16
overcome the aggravating factors in that case,
17
which were proven clearly and convincingly beyond a
18
reasonable doubt.
it is simply insufficient to
They also,
19
there was simply
That remains true to this day.
especially Ms.
Wynne,
Ms.
Bierria,
20
noted -- Ms.
Wynne especially testified that,
21
Rogers was a little slow,
22
a psychologist.
23
described herself initially as an educational
24
professional.
25
Um,
but,
of course,
She -- she's not a
-- I
well,
she's not
think she
That was quickly shown to be a lie.
so maybe they did lie.
26
Um,
quite frankly -- now
27
Gwen Bierria,
28
profession noted -- professional,
29
Rogers Lacaze was never placed in special education
30
classes.
31
evaluated but that he was never put in special
32
education,
Ah,
however,
and -- and
who is an education
ah,
admitted that
the teacher said that he was
and -- and that -- returning to the
110
1
testimony of Dr.
2
retardation does not simply arise/
3
retarded/
4
consequently/
5
the time/
6
time he committed the murder.
he notes that mental
so if he's
he was retarded in school.
if he was not mentally retarded at
while their burden is slightly lower on
8
the issue of mental retardation/
9
carry a burden/
they still do
and they've failed to meet that
And again/
I
think as far as the -- I'm
10
burden.
11
not gonna
12
gonna try to re-create the testimony.
13
testimony/
14
will be quite plain between Dr.
15
Dr.
16
17
Ah/
then he is not mentally retarded at the
Again/
7
Pinkston/
as a non-expert in psychology/1 1 m not
I
think the
once the Court receives the transcripts/
Woods and/
ah/
last thing I want to turn to is/
ah/
Pinkston.
Now/
he
the various -- the kind of -- I will call the
18
remaining ineffective assistance claims as far as
19
motion to suppress/
20
the suppression issue I
21
was -- was foreclosed by the Supreme Court because
22
there's really been no evidence impeaching the
23
identifications of,
24
at trial.
25
Chau Vu's -- if you want to disregard Chau Vu's
26
identification altogether,
27
reliable,
28
Quoc Vu.
29
ah/
ah,
the alibi witness.
I mean,
still think is -- was
either Quoc Vu or Chau Vu
And even if you want to eliminate
valid,
you still have the
unsuggested/
ah/
identification by
And one of the other elephants in the room of
30
many they cannot get around is John Ross,
31
Adam -- knew Rogers Lacaze very well as a regular
32
customer,
ah,
testified he did,
111
in fact,
who knew
observe
In fact,
he made a joke to
1
Rogers Lacaze buy gas.
2
him,
3
shows that he knew Lacaze well enough to know that
4
he didn't have a credit card.
5
familiar with him enough to feel
6
with him.
7
evidence put forward that could,
8
suggestive or the non-suggestiveness or the
9
reliability of this identification.
10
IISince when did you get a credit card?1I
Again,
It
He joked -- he was
like he could joke
there's no -- there was no
ah,
undermine the
What they put
forward is just simply insufficient.
Again,
11
this goes to the strength of the
12
State's case.
Lacaze is not identified by people
13
who had never seen him before.
14
by people who had seen him before.
15
John Ross,
16
also identi-
17
people,
18
Adam Frank and said very explicitly it was not him.
He was identified
In the case of
who were very familiar with him.
He was
-- he was also identified by -- by two
Quoc and Chau,
who were very familiar with
19
You know,
20
Angela Walker,
21
In fact,
22
not commit the crime,
23
saying I was with him at some point during the
24
night. II
25
after midnight at some point.
26
that she was with him at 1:50 in the morning when
27
he was murdering three people at Kim Anh.
28
because she wasn't.
29
say,
when I
they presented alibi witnesses here.
however,
didn't present an alibi.
asked her if she thought Lacaze did
)
30
she said,
IINo,
She didn't specify when.
Now,
she,
I'm just
She said it was
She didn't ever say
It's
I will flat out
was lying.
They have failed to impeach Patrick Mazant's
31
testimony.
32
they said at most,
None of them said he wasn't there.
well,
Ah,
he was sitting around and
112
But he
1
-- and playing cards and all that.
2
testified at trial,
3
that he could see everything.
4
was in the bar at the time.
5
Rogers Lacaze was not there.
6
Rogers Lacaze was not there that night,
7
say exactly why.
8
in,
9
came with Rogers,
10
and that has been unimpeached,
He knew everyone who
He simply said that
Not only did he say
Because when Michael Lacaze came
which they both came in regularly,
was alone.
he could
and on that night,
he always
Michael Lacaze
It stuck out in his mind.
Peter Williams -- and he testified here.
11
He
12
testified at the preliminary hearing.
13
called at trial,
14
trial,
15
preliminary hearing he testified that he -- he was
16
at Mr.
17
murder but that he left at 1:20 in the morning,
18
which is a half hour before the murders,
19
half hour that he cannot account -- he cannot
20
account for.
21
strategy by Mr.
22
who could not provide an alibi.
23
THE COURT:
and the reason he wasn't called at
as the record will show,
CIS
is that at the
with Rogers Lacaze on the night of the
which is a
It actually seems like good trial
Turk not to call an alibi witness
Was it good trial strategy to call him at the
24
25
preliminary examination where he,
26
that fact in front of the prosecutor,
27
everybody?
28
MR.
29
He was not
ah,
established
God,
and
PICKETT:
Well,
in the end,
whether or not he would have
30
been better reserved,
31
presume is that he would testify in accordance with
32
-- at trial with how he did at the preliminary
the only thing you can
113
1
examination,
which means in front of a jury,
2
would have gotten up there and said,
3
was with him there until 1:20,11 which would have
4
made it very easy for Ms.
5
Ms.
6
half an hour?1I
7
prejudice because there's -- you have to presume
8
that Peter Williams -- and -- and they actually --
9
Peter Williams was asked if he would testify the
1I0h,
Woods -- Mr.
Teel to come in and argue,
he
yes,
I
Woods and
IIWhere's the other
So I don't think there was any
10
same at trial as he testified,
ah,
11
He didn't really say when he was there till on this
12
time,
13
testified
14
examination that he left the bar at 1:20,
15
would not be able to dispute that.
16
evidence we have is that at trial Peter Williams
17
would have testified,
18
Rogers Lacaze.
19
leave a half hour unaccounted for,
20
overcome that.
21
Now,
but he acknowledged when I
in this hearing.
asked him he
that he testified at the preliminary
if I
I
So the only
"I was at Mr.
left at 1:20. 11
that he
CIS
with
It still would
and they cannot
could just have a minute,
I
think
22
I've
23
am done.
24
and that will be brief because their testimony is
25
obviously quite,
ah -- rather fresh in the Court's
26
head,
really want to close up on
27
another aspect of the Adam Frank issue.
28
I want to talk about two more things,
and,
Now,
and I
One is Rex Sparks and Timothy Scanlan,
ah,
I
Rex Sparks,
ah -- Rex Sparks,
ah,
on
if that
29
is the best expert on crime scene reconstruction
30
they could have presented,
31
needed to call Timothy Scanlan,
32
he first of all was not qualified to render half
114
I didn't even see why we
to be honest.
Ah,
1
the opinions that he made.
He made -- and the
2
biggest evidence that he presented or among it was
3
all these shoe imprints,
4
scene that NOPD,
5
note or identify even though,
6
who is infinitely more qualified than he is,
7
manage crime scenes,
8
testified that that was a skill that he was not
9
qualified for.
ah,
that were found on the
in his estimation,
ah,
failed to,
as Colonel Scanlan,
ah,
to
among other things,
He was not an impressions,
10
expert.
11
different.
12
about a pattern of blood left by a shoe.
13
talking about an imprint in the blood.
ah,
Because blood -- blood pattern analysis is
Now,
14
ah,
He -- Rex Sparks really wasn't talking
of course,
He was
as Colonel Scanlan pointed
15
out,
who is a tool mark -- and impression is a
16
sub-,
17
ah,
18
those were shoe prints.
19
very evident they were post attack.
20
after,
21
after blood from non-beating hearts had poured over
22
the floor,
23
they simply were not any indication
24
was nothing that would lead the police to think
25
that those prints,
26
left by the attackers.
as he testified,
is a subset of tool marks
there's simply -- there was no evidence that
ah,
And if they were,
it's
They were left
Ronnie Williams had been dragged away,
ah,
for a certain amount of time,
This was -- like I
28
controlled crime scene.
This was in,
29
if they said 15 minutes,
still,
30
attack.
said,
this was a
31
mutual combat.
32
unfortunately,
I
-- a
out -- even
a rather fast
This was not a situation
Mr.
there
if they -- even more prints were
27
Urn,
ah,
but
think that Mr.
there was no
Lacaze
and,
Sparks seems to have the idea
115
1
that this was,
you know -- this is some kind of
2
Hollywood production where blood is just literally
3
painting the walls.
4
that's simply not what happens in these cases.
As Colonel Scanlan testified,
5
Urn,
6
conclusively,
7
Again,
8
spatter than"Rex Sparks.
9
the issue of back spatter was
ah,
put to bed by Colonel Scanlan.
infinitely more qualified to talk about back
Urn,
Almost embarrassingly so.
the issue of the reconstruction of the
10
crime scene and -- and -- and of
11
where the shooter had to be standing.
12
Rex Sparks didn't even follow proper protocol.
13
Timothy Scanlan,
14
you never put an exact "x."
15
no expert worth his salt is going to actually say,
16
"I know a hundred percent certain that he had to be
17
standing here," based on trajectory analysis that
18
he didn't even do.
19
Colonel Scanlan,
wher~
the -I mean,
told this Court,
You put a range.
That
What did -- what did we learn from
20
Colonel Scanlan?
There is a possibility that the
21
killer was sitting there.
22
which he called more likely,
23
actually where the State's case put him at the time
24
of trial.
25
draw that exact conclusion that Rex Sparks drew.
26
Unfortunately,
27
could have been standing there is not sufficient
28
for Mr.
29
because especially where that possibility also
30
supports the State's theory at trial and the
31
conclusion to which NOPD came as to where the
32
killer was standing,
Ah -- and,
again,
There's a possibility,
I mean,
that the killer was
you simply couldn't
the mere possibility they
Lacaze to meet his burden in this case,
especially when you look at
116
ah,
1
where the shell casings were and understand how
2
they eject from a 9 millimeter Beretta.
3
attempt to impeach the NOPD's crime scene
4
management,
5
just fell apart.
6
Ah,
documentation,
and in the end,
handling,
I
-- the
just -- it
if this is the best they
7
could show that Mr.
Turk could have done,
8
simply not be enough to make the jury give it any
9
weight or to impeach,
ah,
it would
the handling of the crime
10
scene or the management or the documentation or the
11
conclusions drawn,
12
Department.
13
-- the witness they called had never taken a
14
professional competent exam -- competency exam in
15
any of the areas in which he purported to be an
16
expert.
17
Sparks,
18
comes to whose testimony to believe and whose
19
testimony to credit.
20
I
Ah,
and,
by the New Orleans Police
I mean,
especially when the
think with Colonel Scanlan and Rex
I mean,
And I
ah,
you have a clear winner when it
think what this really comes down to --
21
and you kind of -- you know,
22
this for -- for a week and a half,
23
the facts of this case.
24
to step back,
25
reasonable.
26
at the time of trial and that has been uncovered
27
since the time of trial.
28
that to the theories that Mr.
29
forth and has to support.
30
we've been all deep in
very deep into
You just have -- you have
and you just have to look at what's
You have to look at the evidence both
Simply put,
And you have to relate
Lacaze is putting
in order for their theory of the
31
case to stand up and to win out,
32
convince this Court that a jury would have been
117
they have to
1
reasonable in concluding that three eyewitnesses or
2
two eyewitnesses who knew Adam Frank and who had
3
seen Rogers Lacaze the night of the murder would
4
mistake the 6'5" behemoth Adam Frank for the 5'3"
5
Rogers Lacaze
6
determination and a reasonable mistake where it --
7
that it would have been reasonable that these --
8
that Quoc and Chau Vu made that mistake,
9
is just simply not even implausible.
l
if that would have been a reasonable
That is not possible.
and that
That is
10
impossible.
It certainly is
11
not enough to meet the burden under 930.2.
And John Ross is even a bigger loss,
12
because
13
John Ross knew Rogers Lacaze very well,
14
Rogers Lacaze interestingly was only arrested at
15
his brother's residence three blocks away from
16
John Ross'
17
not heard a single shred of evidence supporting
18
their theory that Adam Frank was involved in the
19
Kim Anh murders in any regard.
20
Urn,
gas station.
and
There -- this Court has
as much as I appreciate opposing counsel's
21
subjective understanding of what our intention was
22
with calling him,
23
they didn't call him.
I mean,
he is the linchpin
24
to their case as far as guilt,
as far as who done
25
it,
26
why we had a trial.
27
and talk to him.
28
say.
29
through the secondhand test-
30
of Perry Fleming, who couldn't say anything about
31
Adam Frank's involvement in this case and with the
32
unauthenticated affidavits of a convicted murderer
that~
perhaps there's a reason
which is really what this came down to.
Now,
That's
And yet they didn't even go
Perhaps they knew what he would
they attempted to impeach him,
118
ah,
-- hearsay testimony
1
from Florida and another inmate,
2
they could not even be bothered to bring into court
3
to testify in person.
I mean,
4
Andre Louis,
who
What does that tell you?
with Adam Frank you heard it from the
5
horse's mouth,
and you can give his testimony as
6
much weight as you see fit,
7
testified and admitted some things he didn't have
8
to admit there.
9
simply didn't commit this crime.
He wasn't hiding anything.
he
He
Rogers Lacaze
There's simply no evidence that has been put
10
did.
11
forward that he didn't.
12
but 1 1 11 tell you,
I mean -- and I
think that really is what this
13
boils down to.
14
could have done -- and we don't definitively know
15
what he did or didn't do,
16
must take that into consideration because you only
17
heard one side of the story,
18
that one side of the story,
19
could have done to have even reasonably -- even
20
present a reasonable possibility of coming back
21
even with a hung jury or a second-degree murder or
22
an attempt first-degree murder.
23
was simply and remains simply overwhelming.
24
Rogers Lacaze murdered Ronnie Williams and at the
25
very least helped murder Cuong Vu and Ha Vu.
26
will never change.
27
There is nothing that Willie Turk
and I
think this Court
but even only hearing
there's nothing he
Ah,
the evidence
That
There was nothing that Willie Turk could have
28
done to prevent that,
to prevent that verdict,
29
there was nothing in the police report -- which
30
admittedly was not turned over -- there was nothing
31
in the homicide report that was even favorable let
32
alone material to the question of guilt or
119
and
1
innocence or as far as the sentencing.
2
was nothing involving the -- the
the -- the gun
3
situation,
is just a dead
4
end.
5
nothing.
6
time,
7
and motions,
8
over the course of a week and a half is a long way
9
to come just to end right back -- end up right back
Ah,
the mysterious gun is
It's been eight -- 18 years is a long
and
and thousands of pages of pleadings
20
who knows how many witnesses
where we were in July of 1995.
11
what we have done.
Ah,
there
they really have presented absolutely
10
12
Ah,
Mr.
But that is exactly
Lacaze has simply failed to meet his
13
burden under Article 930.2 proving his entitlement
14
to relief either as to the guilty verdict or the
15
sentence of death,
16
requests that this Court deny his motion for -- his
17
application for post-conviction relief.
18
MS.
and the state respectfully
Thank you.
TAPLIN:
19
I will try to be brief,
your Honor.
20
We don't want to fundamentally confuse the
21
nature of these proceedings.
22
claim of actual innodence,
23
clear about the standard for ineffective assistance
24
of counsel and Brady claims that we've raised in
25
post conviction.
26
in order to make these claims we would have to
27
prove
28
crime or prove definitively that Rogers Lacaze
29
didn't commit this crime and putting our actual
30
innocence claim aside.
31
standard.
32
which is a probability sufficient to undermine
Urn,
we have raised a
however,
we want to be
The State seems to suggest that
definitive~y
that Adam Frank committed this
That is simply not the
The standard is reasonable probability,
120
1
confidence in the outcome.
2
standard is.
That is what the
We did not call Adam Frank.
3
I
think it was
4
no surprise to anyone in this room that when
5
Adam Frank was called he said he didn't do it.
6
would be highly unorthodox,
7
putting on a Defense with an alternate suspect to
8
call that suspect and ask him if he committed this
9
crime.
Mr.
10
I
think,
It
if someone was
It's pretty clear what his answer would be.
Pickett made the point that
11
Antoinette Frank could not have shot
12
Ronald Williams.
13
been made clearly throughout these proceedings
14
that no one saw who shot Ronald Williams,
15
single person.
16
on the O.J.
17
out that O.J.
18
that aside,
19
and that what we've made.
I
think the point has also
,
Mr.
not a
\
Plckett says that we're putting
Simpson Defense.
I would only point
Simpson was found not guilty.
But
let's be clear about what our burden is
I want to clarify when this crime was actually
20
21
committed.
22
first 9-1-1 call came in in this case.
23
that the crime was
24
would make sense seeing as the 9-1-1 call came in.
Mr.
25
1:51 is,
I believe,
co~mitted
or 1:49 is when the
It's clear
prior to that.
It
Turk did not put on Peter Williams or
26
Angela Walker despite the fact that they would have
27
rebutted the State's case that Mr.
28
playing pool at all that night.
29
presented reasonable doubt to jurors to hear people
30
say,
31
at 1:20.
32
stayed with him till closing."
"I
Lacaze wasn't
It would have
saw him that night playing pool.
I
I
saw him sometime after midnight.
121
saw him
I
These are people
1
who were known to Defense counsel,
2
have put on,
3
simply failed to do it.
who he could
who he could have interviewed,
Turning to the claims about jurors,
4
and he
both our
5
misconduct claims,
as well as ineffective
6
assistance of counsel.
7
-- although we have addressed -- that Ms.
8
wasn't simply a member of the NOPD.
9
simply a part of this fraternity of officers and
She was,
The State did not address
in essence,
Mushatt
She wasn't
10
civilians.
a witness in this
11
case.
12
the 9-1-1 call came in.
13
dispatchers.
14
frequently as a supervisor.
15
this unfurled.
16
that a witness in a case cannot sit as a
17
judgment,
even putting aside her employment with
18
the NOPD,
which this Court cannot possibly put
19
aside in a case where it was the murder of an NOPD
20
officer.
She was sitting in the dispatch room when
She assisted other
She testified that she acted
I
She was there when
think that everyone would admit
juror in
,
21
And perhaps Ms.
Mushatt,
I
think,
22
attended Ronald Williams'
23
what you did as a department.
24
remember her actual words,
25
the point that it wasn't specifically,
26
an alliance with Ronald Williams,
27
alliance with the department.
28
for your co-workers.
29
the department,
30
versus Rogers Lacaze.
31
wasn't a competent juror,
32
she sat there.
as she said,
funeral because that's
Forgive me.
I don't
but I know that she made
maybe out of
but out of an
That's what you do
And this was a case that was
the New Orleans Police Department
This person just simply
and i t ' s outrageous that
122
1
THE COURT:
Let me ask you,
2
3
peremptories?
4
MS.
Thank you,
6
in fact,
7
THE COURT:
No,
he did not.
MS.
left five peremptory challenges.
TAPLIN:
Yes.
THE COURT:
You mentioned the access to the juror list,
13
14
and they had the occupations on that?
15
MS.
TAPLIN:
Yes,
16
17
He,
when I was -- before.
11
12
your Honor.
And the other question that slipped my mind
8
10
Turk exhaust his
TAPLIN:
5
9
did Mr.
your Honor.
THE COURT:
is it in this record that
Does this record
18
19
Mr.
Turk had that?
20
MS.
TAPLIN:
It1s nowhere in the record that Mr.
21
Urn,
if he did,
Turk had
his ineffectiveness is even
22
that.
23
more shocking,
24
any access to that.
25
that later on in post conviction,
26
record that he had access to that.
27
THE COURT:
28
Well,
but there is no record that he had
Urn,
my point was,
we were able to obtain
but there's no
is that you have
29
documented that it did exist,
30
whether it was common practice at that time for the
31
attorneys to have that?
32
MS.
TAPLIN:
123
but you don't know
1
I
2
believe Mr.
3
THE COURT:
I
Reed did speak to that
Uh-huh.
4
5
Urn,
certainly couldn't speak to that.
MS.
TAPLIN:
that it was common practice at that time.
6
7
Urn,
the list in question is,
8
for the entire month,
9
Mr.
urn,
I believe,
the venire
and lists all jurors.
Turk had a separate list of just the jurors in
10
this case that didn't reference any identifying
11
information.
12
I can't speak to,
13
THE COURT:
Urn,
but
There's nothing in the record to suggest,
but
you know --
All right.
14
15
It was just a strike sheet.
MS.
TAPLIN:
16
17
the practice was perhaps that he could have.
18
THE COURT:
I'm glad that I
19
20
adjourned.
21
MS.
remembered it before we
TAPLIN:
I want to speak just briefly about the Brady
22
23
claims.
Urn,
24
mention the suppression of the statement of
25
Chau Vu,
26
sort of the most shocking Brady violations in this
27
case.
28
the State's case,
29
I
30
star witness.
31
described in very emotional detail what occurred
32
during this crime.
urn,
the State,
and I
in its summation,
didn't
think that this· is one of
Chau Vu and Quoc Vu were both witnesses to
but if you read their testimony,
think i t ' s clear that Chau Vu was the State's
She spoke for the longest.
Urn,
she
Had the jury heard that this
124
1
eyewitness previously stated that she only saw
2
Antoinette Frank when she sat in the cooler --
3
you read the entirety of the statement,
4
abundantly clear that that is what she's saying
5
it would call the State's case into question.
6
would put it in a different light.
7
want to make that abundantly clear.
In terms of Stanley Morlier,
8
9
Urn,
if
it is
and I
It
just
the State
discusses how he had suspicions but that he never
10
brought that to the attention of other officers.
11
First,
12
member of the State,
13
strong that he,
14
informant to try to track down Adam Frank.
15
belief that Adam Frank was involved in this crime
16
was that strong.
17
some suspicions,
18
they would ask Officer David Talley so many
19
questions about Adam Frank.
I
Now,
20
would say that Officer Morlier,
I
urn,
was a
and his suspicions were so
in fact,
employed a confidential
His
Other NOPD officers clearly had
too,
or it is unexplainable why
don't know what Stanley Morlier told
21
Officer Richard Marino because there's no record of
22
that entire conversation,
23
with OffiCer Talley was not in the NOPD file.
24
only obtained that through subpoena duces tecum of
25
the Public Integrity Division file.
just like the interview
We
But the State didn't mention two things about
26
27
Stanley Morlier.
One is that he was called as the
28
State's witness at Antoinette Frank's trial.
29
Clearly,
30
had something to contribute to these proceedings,
31
lot,
32
trial that he lied about at Rogers Lacaze's trial
the State believed that Officer Morlier
and what he contributed at Antoinette Frank's
125
a
1
is that he witnessed an argument between
2
Antoinette Frank,
3
at the Kim Anh Restaurant and that Antoinette Frank
4
threatened to kill Ronnie Williams if he messed
5
with her brother again.
6
that the State thought was so significant they put
7
it on in their case against Antoinette Frank
8
because it showed motive.
9
with the victim.
Ronnie Williams,
and Adam Frank
That is critical evidence
It showed prior contact
It showed a death threat against
10
the victim involving Antoinette Frank's brother.
11
This is the very evidence that Rogers Lacaze tried
12
to put on and yet couldn't.
I
13
failed to mention in my final remarks the
14
additional evidence that we have supplemented with
15
I believe it was our second supplement,
16
an investigation that was going on into Adam Frank
17
in which Officer Precious Davis reported that
18
Adam Frank had a gun,
19
radio,
20
his sister while she was on details -- I'm sorry,
21
while she was on duty.
22
to put these two people side by side,
23
and Adam Frank,
24
committed this crime with Antoinette Frank,
25
18-year-old that she only met a few days -- pardon
26
me -- a few months earlier or her trusted brother,
27
her protector with a violent history who is known
28
to be armed,
29
her?
30
that Rogers Lacaze was also seen riding around with
31
Antoinette Frank,
32
two people side by side.
which was
that Adam Frank had a police
and that Adam Frank was riding around with
If Rogers Lacaze was able
Rogers Lacaze
who was more likely to have
the
who is known to be riding around with
Regardless of whether the State had evidence
we're talking about putting these
Would the result have
126
1
2
been different?
Could it have been different?
The State at some point referenced that we
3
have to prove that the jury's decision was
4
irrational.
5
sufficiency of the evidence standard,
6
simply is not the standard before this Court.
7
That's not the standard.
That's
and that
The State asked this Court to discount the
8
testimony of Vui Vu.
9
that she wasn't called at trial,
I
do think i t ' s instructive
although she was
10
equally an eyewitness in this case.
11
significance of what Ms.
12
into question the eyewitness identifications of the
13
other two.
14
sitting together on the floor of the cooler,
15
you could see is shadows,
16
that testimony,
17
would have called into question the identification
18
of Chau Vu,
19
identification of Quoc Vu.
20
The
Vu said is that it calls
Ms. Vu said that the three of them
all
a shadow of a person,
and
if that was put before the jury,
would have called into question the
Turning to just George Woods'
testimony,
the
21
State has criticized the neuropsychological
22
testing.
23
were to put aside the neuropsychological testing,
24
it would have no impact on the determination of
25
mental retardation.
26
in this case was done by an expert appointed by the
27
Court,
28
and he got a 71 I.Q.
29
Um,
we will say that even if this Court
The I.Q.
testing that was done
certainly not the Defense hack,
Dr.
Salcedo,
If this Court is determining whether there was
30
ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty
31
phase,
32
evidence that's put before the Court undermines the
the only issue is whether or not this
127
1
outcome and the verdict.
2
determining the ultimate issue of whether or not
3
Mr.
4
then the burden is only preponderance of the
S
evidence.
If this Court is
Lacaze is a person with mental retardation,
The State may criticize Mr.
6
They're free to do so.
Lacaze's family
7
members.
8
criticize,
urn,
9
Dr.
but the point is that they told a story,
Woods,
his teachers.
They may
They may criticize
10
a story that needed to be told to the jury,
11
that was never told about Rogers Lacaze.
12
that it doesn't outweigh the aggravating
13
circumstances,
14
and I
a story
They said
but we're not in a weighing state,
think your Honor is well aware of that.
We've presented eight days of testimony as
lS
16
well as the State,
17
the amount of suppressed evidence in this case is
18
shocking.
19
Willie Turk just simply never bothered to find is,
20
urn,
Urn,
the amount of evidence that
could say more,
your Honor,
22
think we've all had a long,
23
will stop talking only to say that Mr.
24
met his burden in this case and then some,
2S
think that's very clear.
26
THE COURT:
27
28
I
MS.
Urn,
inexcusable.
I wish I
21
a mountain of pleadings.
long week,
want to thank you-all for --
TAPLIN:
29
30
31
32
128
and I
and so I
Lacaze has
and I