Swear on the Stand

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.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken, a case addressing the legality of "Allen charges" in jury deliberations. The Per Curiam opinion reverses a lower court's ruling, finding that the trial judge's supplemental instructions to a jury, which had inquired about a hung jury, were not coercive. The Court explicitly abrogates its prior decision in State v. Nicholson, which had previously banned "Allen charges" in Louisiana, aligning the state with the majority of other jurisdictions that permit such instructions, provided they are not coercive under the totality of the circumstances. Concurring opinions further discuss the defendant's failure to contemporaneously object to the instructions and commend the Court for correcting what one justice deemed a previous judicial error lacking constitutional basis.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's reversal of an appellate court decision concerning Reginald Ruffins' conviction for false personation of a peace officer. The Court found that the appellate court misinterpreted the statute by adding a requirement that the "special privilege or advantage" sought must be exclusive to law enforcement. Instead, the Supreme Court clarified that the statute only requires the intent to obtain any special privilege or advantage through impersonation. The Court reinstated Ruffins' conviction and sentence, citing evidence that he impersonated an officer to secure a security contract, obtain a rent roll, and enter a private residence to handcuff and interrogate an individual. This ruling emphasizes the broad scope of the law regarding the intent element in false personation cases.

This episode discusses a precedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the appeal of United States v. Outlaw. The central issue revolves around whether a police detective had probable cause to arrest Abdul Outlaw, which would justify a search incident to arrest. The court affirmed the District Court's decision to suppress evidence found on Outlaw, including a firearm and marijuana, because the smell of burning marijuana alone was not sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest when multiple individuals were present in the vehicle. The opinion clarifies that while the smell can justify searching a vehicle, it must be particularized to an individual for a lawful arrest, and in this instance, it could not be definitively linked solely to Outlaw.

This episode details a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case, Estate of Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, concerning the tragic death of a three-month-old infant, La’Mello Parker, during a police confrontation with his fugitive father. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, concluding that while the circumstances were devastating, the officers' actions did not amount to a constitutional violation under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments, and they were shielded by qualified immunity. The ruling emphasizes that the officers' use of force, including ramming the vehicle and returning fire when the father shot at them, was deemed objectively reasonable given the immediate threat posed by the armed and dangerous suspect, despite the accidental death of the child. The court also rejected claims of bystander and municipal liability, as they require an underlying constitutional violation that was not found in this instance.

This episode involves an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit regarding the case of Chisesi v. Hunady. The case involves an appeal by Officer Matthew Hunady and Sheriff Huey Hoss Mack after a district court denied their motions for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Donna Chisesi, as administratrix of Jonathan Victor's estate, alleging excessive force against Officer Hunady and failure-to-train supervisory liability against Sheriff Mack, following Victor's death during a standoff. The appellate court dismissed Officer Hunady's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding he only contested factual disputes, but reversed the denial of summary judgment for Sheriff Mack, concluding that the plaintiff failed to show the Sheriff had sufficient notice of training deficiencies to incur liability. The case was then remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's rulings.

This episode discusses a judicial opinion from United States v. Ostrum concerning a defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case. The defendant, Dylan Ostrum, sought to exclude evidence obtained from the search of a stolen rental car and two safes found inside it, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the motion, ruling that Ostrum lacked standing to challenge the search because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle. Furthermore, the court found the search permissible under both the automobile exception due to probable cause and as a lawful inventory search conducted according to police policy.

This episode discusses an appellate court opinion from the Fifth Circuit, specifically the case of Estevis v. Cantu, filed on April 16, 2025. It details an appeal regarding qualified immunity for police officers who fired shots at a suspect, Alejandro Estevis, after a high-speed pursuit. The court examines whether the officers' actions, particularly shots 4-9, violated clearly established law regarding excessive force. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, granting qualified immunity to the officers for all shots fired, finding that existing precedent did not clearly establish their conduct was unlawful under the dangerous circumstances.