This episode details the appellate journey of State v. Valencia-Lacayo, a criminal case concerning the denial of a motion to suppress evidence and statements following an investigatory stop. The first source, an opinion from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, reversed the district court's judgment, finding that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Arial Valencia-Lacayo because the officers relied only on an unsubstantiated "tip" from a sergeant. However, the second source shows that the Supreme Court of Louisiana granted the State's writ application and reversed the Court of Appeal's ruling. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment denying the motion to suppress, concluding that the Court of Appeal improperly substituted its findings for those of the trial court, which had deemed the officers' collective knowledge and testimony credible. This final decision affirmed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the suppression motion.

This episode discusses the Louisiana Supreme Court and Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit decisions in the criminal case of State v. Leonidas Lowry, who was convicted of second-degree murder. The core issue addressed in both rulings is the denial of Lowry’s motion to suppress evidence extracted from his cell phone, which was seized under a warrant but analyzed more than ten days after its issuance, potentially violating La. C.Cr.P. art. 163(C). The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial by interpreting the statute in effect at the time, which permitted the examination of seized property to be conducted at any time during the criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court also affirmed the ruling but faced a partial dissent and a concurrence regarding whether the later 2019 amendment to the statute, which specifically addresses the extraction of electronic device data, should apply retroactively to clarify the law. Ultimately, both appellate courts concluded that the delay in analyzing the cell phone data was permissible, leading to the affirmation of Lowry's conviction and sentence.

This episode presents a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the case of Wood v. Bexar County, Texas, decided in 2025, which affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants. The case originated from Amanda Wood's arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in 2019, where she subsequently sued the arresting officer, Deputy J. Gereb, and Bexar County, alleging various constitutional and state law violations, including false arrest and excessive force. The court provided two competing accounts of the traffic stop—Deputy Gereb's version, alleging Wood violated traffic laws and smelled of alcohol, and Wood's version, alleging she committed no violations and was arrested for refusing a field sobriety test—but noted that the post-arrest events were captured on video. Ultimately, the court determined that Deputy Gereb was entitled to qualified immunity because there was probable cause for the arrest, and Wood failed to establish any underlying constitutional violations to support her claims against both the officer and the county under Monell liability.

This episode discusses a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, United States v. Wilson, concerning a Fourth Amendment challenge to the exclusionary rule and its good-faith exception. The majority opinion affirms the district court’s decision to suppress evidence obtained from Ricky Wilson's girlfriend's apartment, finding the search warrant affidavit was "bare-bones" because it failed to establish a nexus between Wilson’s alleged crime (an aggravated assault at a Waffle House) and the place searched. The majority criticizes the affidavit for resting on conjecture rather than facts, thereby rendering the officers' reliance on the warrant unreasonable. In contrast, the dissenting opinion argues that the good-faith exception should apply, based on the common-sense inference that people typically keep personal items, including firearms and ammunition, in their homes, especially when the residence is in reasonable proximity to the crime.

This episode presents an appeal in the case of United States v. Damion Wilson, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The primary issue addressed is whether carrying a firearm alone provides sufficient grounds for a Terry stop, a question the court answers definitively in the negative, rooted in the Fourth Amendment's history against general warrants and writs of assistance. However, the court ultimately affirms Wilson's conviction and sentence, finding that other specific factors, such as his association with a federal fugitive and prior criminal history, provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. A concurring and dissenting opinion highlights a disagreement with the majority's extensive discussion on the Terry stop and contests the application of an obstruction-of-justice sentencing guideline based on the indictment's language.

This episode details an appeal case in the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana versus Koby Dillon. The court affirmed Dillon's convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and illegal possession of a weapon while possessing a controlled dangerous substance. However, the sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was vacated due to the district court's failure to impose a mandatory fine, and the case was remanded for resentencing on that specific count. The episode further addresses Dillon's various assignments of error, including challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for his prior convictions and the identity of the seized substance, as well as arguments regarding the admissibility of "other crimes" evidence and the constitutionality of his twenty-year sentence. Ultimately, the court rejected most of Dillon's arguments, upholding the convictions and most of the sentences.

This episode provides an update on legislative changes impacting Driving While Impaired (DWI) laws in Louisiana, specifically focusing on Act No. 194 of 2025 and Act 662 of 2024. Act 194 increases fines for certain driving offenses, including Operating While Impaired (OWI) and reckless operation, to benefit the Louisiana Emergency Response Network (LERN) Fund. The episode highlights that this seemingly minor fine increase for OWI First and Second Offenses could elevate them to "Duncan Misdemeanors," triggering the right to a jury trial and complicating current plea, jurisdiction, and appeals processes. Additionally, Act 662 significantly alters the elements of OWI from "intoxication" to "impairment," potentially rendering many local ordinances misaligned with state law and creating challenges for future prosecutions and responsive verdicts. The episode highlights the potential for widespread litigation and calls for legislative action to resolve these procedural and jurisdictional ambiguities.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court case of State of Louisiana vs. Malcolm J. Chester, decided on June 27, 2025. The core issue revolves around a defective bill of information that failed to specify the victim's exact age and the relevant penalty provision for aggravated crime against nature, despite the defendant's conviction for an offense involving a victim under thirteen, which carries a harsher sentence. While the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial due to this defect, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction but remanded for resentencing under a less severe penalty, finding the error in the original charging instrument did not prejudice the defendant's ability to defend himself. Dissenting opinions argue the defect was harmless and the original sentence should stand, given the clear evidence and jury's finding of the victim's age. A concurring opinion highlights that the trial court overstepped its authority by effectively amending the charges.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand the conviction of Brhian Thomas for second-degree murder, ordering a new trial. The majority opinion found Thomas's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, specifically by failing to adequately challenge the State's primary witness, Javonnie Raymond, and by advising Thomas not to testify on his own behalf. The dissenting opinion, however, argues that the objective evidence, particularly the fact that the victim, Deeric Raymond, was shot in the back, strongly undermines Thomas's self-defense claim and that the alleged errors by counsel were not substantial enough to warrant a new trial. The case centers on the interpretation of whether Thomas acted in justifiable self-defense or was the initial aggressor, and the reliability of witness testimony versus forensic evidence.

The episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's review of the case State of Louisiana vs. Kayla Jean Giles Coutee, involving a defendant convicted of second-degree murder and obstruction of justice for killing her estranged husband. The majority opinion reverses and vacates the murder conviction, arguing that the trial court's jury instruction on the "aggressor doctrine" was an error because it conflicted with Louisiana's "stand your ground" law, which creates a presumption of reasonable belief in using deadly force when someone is unlawfully entering a vehicle. However, the dissenting and concurring opinions argue that the "aggressor doctrine" instruction was appropriate given evidence of premeditation by the defendant and that the jury was capable of discerning the facts. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the murder charge, and for the appellate court to reassess the sufficiency of evidence for the obstruction of justice conviction and the length of its associated sentence.