Louisiana v. Michael Docket: 2019-KK-01273 Opinion Date: July 9, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law In June 2016, defendant Jason Michael drove his truck into a smaller vehicle on Louisiana Highway 44 in Ascension Parish and then fled the scene of the accident. He was found by police a few miles away. His vehicle was heavily damaged, and its debris was found at the scene of the crash. In addition to defendant, two other people were injured in the crash: Bree Lavigne and her minor son Lucas. The State charged defendant with two counts of first degree vehicular negligent injury, one count of hit-and-run driving, and one count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Defendant moved to suppress the BAC results, alleging that the trooper misinformed him that under La. R.S. 32:666 he could not refuse the blood test because serious injury resulted from the crash and that defendant’s consent was therefore coerced. The district court denied the motion to suppress after a hearing. Defendant unsuccessfully sought supervisory review from the court of appeal. He appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, contending the BAD blood draw had to be suppressed because he consented only after being threatened with criminal consequences if he refused. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless BAC blood test. Read Opinion
0 Comments
Louisiana's second medical marijuana grower releases product www.wbrz.com/news/louisiana-s-second-medical-marijuana-grower-releases-product/ Feds to decide if rare Louisiana turtle needs endangered species protection www.nola.com/news/environment/article_c78f4c3c-c069-11ea-ba98-33dd5b21bb0a.html United States v. Wallace Docket: 17-40007 Opinion Date: July 6, 2020 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court held that defendant's three prior Texas burglary convictions under Texas Penal Code 30.02 are generic and thus qualified defendant for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Defendant's arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by United States v. Herrold (Herrold II), 941 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc). Read Opinion United States v. Burden Docket: 19-30394 Opinion Date: July 2, 2020 Judge: Jerry E. Smith Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Burden and Scott's convictions and sentences for unlawfully possessing firearms as felons. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scott's motion for severance where Scott failed to overcome the presumption that the jury would follow the district court's limiting instruction; defendants cannot meet their burden to show that Rehaif error affected their substantial rights; regardless of the standard of review, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; the district court did not err, much less plainly so, in ordering the attorneys to seek approval before mentioning or eliciting testimony concerning defendants' statements that they had just been robbed of their clothing; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a cross-reference to attempted first degree murder at sentencing. Read Opinion Fusilier v. Landry Docket: 19-30665 Opinion Date: June 30, 2020 Judge: Edith H. Jones Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law, Legal Ethics In 2014, plaintiffs, African-American voters and the Terrebonne Parish NAACP, filed suit to challenge the electoral method for Louisiana's 32nd Judicial District Court (JDC), alleging that at-large elections for the judges produce discriminatory results, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and have been maintained for a discriminatory purpose in violation of that statute and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The district court upheld both claims and ordered a remedial plan breaking the 32nd JDC into five single-member electoral subdistricts. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court clearly erred in its finding of minority vote dilution in the election of judges for Terrebonne Parish's 32nd JDC. The court held that the district court erred in holding that weak evidence of vote dilution could overcome the state's substantial interest in linking judicial positions to the judges' parish-wide jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court erroneously equated failed legislative attempts to create subdistricts for the 32nd JDC with a racially discriminatory intent. Read Opinion U.S. 5th Circuit nixes Terrebonne minority judgeship www.nola.com/news/courts/article_43986bd8-bb01-11ea-8937-e70eed02b9d5.html |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
March 2024
Categories |