LAW OFFICES OF FRED L. HERMAN A PROFESSIONAL LAw

Transcription

1 Sep :23PM Sui te 3000 No P. 2/61 FRED L. HEBMAN DIRECT DIAL; (504) THOMAS J. BARJlJ:J{A DDU:cr DIAL: (504) LAW OFFICES OF FRED L. HERMAN A PROFESSIONAL LAw CORPORATION 1010 COMMON STREET, SUITE 3000 NEW ORLEANS, LA TELEPHONE: (504) l'elefax: (504) 5S MSOCM.'!E C0t!NSEL: MA)'RAx". Samv~ MSCHEIJEIlMANN@FREDHERMANLAoW.COM Dnmcr DIAL, (S04) NURSE PAlI.ALEGAL: PATRICIA M. SIIARPI, R.N. PSBARPE@:FREDm;~w.c;:tIM Dnw:T DIAL: (504) September 30, 2013 Chief Disciplinruy Counsel La. Attorney Disciplinary Board 4000 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd., Suite 607 Baton Rouge, LA VIA TELEFAX RE: Respondent: Kevin Paul Guillory Complainant: Samuel S. Dalton (Michael Anderson) Complaint No.: ii - Dear Mr. Plattsmier: This is in response to the inquiry made by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel directed to Kevin P. Guillory Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney. The Complaint involves the case of State a/louisiana v. Michael Anderson, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. It begins with a cl$n that "Judge Linda Van Davis Orleans Parish Criminal District Court ordered a new trial for MI. Michael Anderson because the prosecution had concealed important exculpatoj.y evidence." The Complaint further alleges "the State did not disclose its plea agreement with Ronnie Morgan, and it allowed Mr Morgan to testify that he expected nothing in exchange for his cooperation." The Complaints against Kevin Guillory relate to two issues. The First is the taped interview of witness Torrie Williams. The Second involves witness Ronnie Morgan.

2 Sep :23PM Suite 3000 No.1417 P. 3/61 September 30,2013 page 2 of4 Iorrie Williams The allegations against Kevin Guillory relating to the Tonie Williams taped interview were the subject of an identical complaint filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in 2011~ your file number Mr Guillory responded to that Complaint (Exhibit A hereto), after which your office closed its case (Exhibit B hereto). The facts have not changed. Ronnie Morgan The plea referred to was reached in 2003, six years before the 2009 Anderson trial and three years before five murders. It has always been and remains in the public record. The plea has nothing to do with the Anderson trial. Ronnie Morgan~ was one of three incarcerated witnesses who testified against Mr. Anderson in his 2009 trial. In 2002, Morgan plead guilty in federal court to a bank robbery charge and received a seventeen year sentence. Morgan had State Charges pending at the time. On December 16,2003 Morgan appeared in Criminal District Court with counsel. He plead guilty to all pending state charges and was sentenced to various tenus of incarceration to run concurrent and cotenninous with the federal sentence he was serving. This meant that when he fmished his federal sentence his state sentence is over. This plea was confected between then District Attorney Eddie Jordan's office, Morgan's counsel and the Court. :Mr. Guillory had no role in the plea. This plea was confected three years before the occurrence of the five murders that Michael Anderson accepted responsibility for, and six years before Ronnie Morgan testified in the Anderson trial. The details ofthis plea were and remain in the records of the Clerk of Criminal Court, on the Criminal District Court Docket Master Sheet since (Exhibit C hereto) The Docket Master containing the details of the plea was a public record available to Michael Anderson's counsel since ;\nderson's counsel may have failed to check the records but that does not mean the plea was hidden from him. This was no "secret agreement". In connection with his testimony in the Anderson trial, six years after his plea he was made no promises. Ronnie Morgan testified in the trial as follows: Q. Have you been promised anything in exchange for your testimony today? A. No~ I haven't (Trial testimony page 114~ Exhibit D hereto) Q. Have you been told that even if you participate today, you may in fact never receive any consideration for your testimony today?

3 Sep,30, :23PM Suite 3000 No,1417 p, 4/61 September 30, 2013 page 3 of4 A. Yes, I have been told that. (Trial testimony page 114, Exhibit D hereto) Michael Anderson's counsel cross-examined Morgan extensively. (Trial testimony pages , Exhibit D hereto). There were no promises made, Michael Anderson' s counsel even questioned him regarding Rule 35. After the trial, the District Attorney's Office sent a Request for Rule 35 Consideration letter to the US Attorney informing them that Ronnie Morgan testified, and his testimony helped obtain a conviction and so please help:mr. Morgan if you can. The US Attorney was UIlder no obligation to do anything, but did file a Petition with Judge Barbier asking him to reduce Ronnie Morgan's sentence. Judge Barbier did reduce his Federal sentence. Thereafter, as also reflected on the Docket Master (Exhibit C hereto), Ronnie Morgan appeared in State Court with Counsel asking for the court to enforce the plea entered in 2003 and reduce his State sentence to that of the reduced Federal sentence. The Court did not believe there was any procedural device available to do that. Since, Ronnie Morgan was unable to receive the plea he agreed to in 2003, that is~ a sentence in state court coterminous with his federal sentence, the court permitted him to withdraw his 2003 plea. At that time, the District Attorney's office nolle prossed the state charges conditioned on Ronnie Morgan completing his Federal sentence. This was not done by Mr. Guillory. The effect of the States actions were to honor the plea made in There was no "secret deal". The ROMie Morgan plea was reached in open court and placed in the public records, three years before the five murders and six years before the Anderson trial. The State did not illicit any false testimony. The State did not treat Ronnie Morgan with "extraordinary leniency", the plea to a State sentence coterminous with the Federal sentence was reached in The State could not and did not reduce the FederaJ sentence, a Federal Judge decided to do that. The Anderson trial had nothing to do with "allowing Mr. Morgan to avoid serving any state prison time for his most recent anned robbery" as claimed in the Complaint. The "most recent" robbery referred to was in 2003 and the recorded plea was made at that time. He was to serve his State sentence in Federal prison for as long as the Federal Govenunent incarcerated him. To suggest that this plea was reached in an effort to reward Ronnie Morgan for testimony he would provide six years later relating to a crime that hadn't even occurred yet, is preposterous..

4 Sep,30, :24PM Suite 3000 No,1417 p, 5/61 September 30~ 2013 page 4 of4 Further~ in suggesting that a plea to a iicotenninous~' sentence constitutes "extraordinary leniency", ignores that fact that Mr. Anderson accepted responsibility for'the five murders and accepted a sentence of80 years for each count "cotenninous" with his pending Federal Life sentence relating to other murders. CONCLUSION l\1r Guillory did not violate any Rule of Professional Responsibility, or engage in any misconduct. The plea has been in the public record since 2003 and was always available to Mr. Anderson's couns.el. The Complaintant may believe that a vast conspiracy existed wherein Mr. Guillory was aware of the 2003 plea, that he knew the United States Attorney's Office would seek Rule 35 Consideration, that a Federal Judge would reduce Morgan's sentence and that a Criminal District Court would allow Mr. Morgan to withdraw his plea and the New Orleans District Attomey's would nollle prosse the State charges against Morgan, however, Mr. Guillory was not aware of the 2003 plea, did not have any idea what the United States. Attorneys Office would do~ what a Federal Judge would do or what the District Attorney's Office would do in the future. He made no promises, just as the testimony reflects. Should you require any additional information please let us know. I thank you for your attention to this matter.

5 Sep,30, :24PM Suite 3000 No, 1417 p, 6/61 Kevil) Guillot')' SheffIeld Street New Orleans, LA May Mr. O. Fred Ours Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Offic~ of Disciplinary Counsel 4000 S, Sherwood Forest Blvd, Suite 607 Baton Rouge, LA '70816 Dear Mr. Ours, I write this letter in response to your letters to me and John Alford regarding the news coverage surrounding the matter of the Stare of Louisiana v. Michael A17de1"~'oil (Ol'leans Parish Criminal District Court Case Number "B") wherein the defendant was charged with five co~mts of first degree m.lirde~, While the media was correct about the facts tha.t (1) there was a videotaped interview of eyewitness Torrie Williams that was conducted ill 2007; and (2) that interview was turoed over to defense counsel following the trial and conviction of the defendant, very little else of the story constitutes an accurate factual representation of the events su1tounding this disclosure, ' At the outset, it should be noted that th~ primary source for the WWLTV News coverage was defense counsel who was advocating for his cliellt 'at the time, This advocacy (esulted in a somewhat slanted version of the facts. The videota.pe was not turned over to the defense based upon the State's obligations under Brady v.. Ma1-yland, but based solely upon the Office's policy of turning over all statements made by Torrie Williams based upon her status as the sole eyewitness to testify at trial. I Ex, A, In fact, once members of the District Artor:tley's Offioe had review~d the videotapes, they were determined specifically not to be materially relevant exculpatory information, This fact was supported by the defendant's plea under North Carolina v. Alford which, while not conceding fa.ctual culpability, is an admission that the evidence against him (including the videotapes) was so overwhelming that it was in his, best interests to plead guilty. In addition to the fact that the videotape was not materially exculpatory. it was also not deliberately withheld by me or Mr. Alford for the simple fact of the matter that neither of us were aware of its existence. The interview was conducted by mem bers of the Office bef~re the defendant was ied icted under the case number under which it was ultimately tried. In the meantime, the felony trials division of District Attorney's Office had relocated from 1340 Poydras Avenue to 2601 Tulane Avenue, while the screening, appeals, and magistrate divisions remained behind, By August of2009, when Mr. Alford and I tried the defendant's case, [lone of the individuals \vh9 had, conducted the interview or had been in charge of the case in the interim were still involved. The videotapes were not part of the file at that time and I Evidence at trial, including jailhouse conversations by the defendant. would seem to indicate the p(esence of other eyewitnesses, 'but the State was unable to locate them, "--,..,-'--':.

6 Sep,30, :24PM Suite 3000 No, 1417 p, 7/61 neither of us were 011 notice that they existed or that they were to be found at a diffej'ent location, The defendant was foul1d guil~y as charged on August 26,2009 and sentenced to death on August 29, In November of 2009, ADA David Pipes, who was uninvolved in the case a.nd who was unpacking boxes that had been moved fron, 1340 Poydl'as to the Office's permanent horne at 619 S. White Str~et, found nn envelope containing several micro-videotapes labeled "Tonie Williams." I was informed of the discovery but I had no knowledge of what the tapes conta.ined. We met with the District Attorney and the First Assistant arid were instructed to convert the ta.pes to '~ viewable medium (we had no means to play the small tape's at the time) al1d then turn them over to the defense. Ex. B. Mr. Alford turned the tapes over to the defense on January 5, A hearing 011 the defendant's motion for new trial was conducted on March 1 & 2,2010. The trial jlldge, Lynda Van Davis, made no findizlg tha.t Mr, Alford or I knew about the existence ofthe videotapes and specifically stated that she would take Mr. Alford at his word when he said that he was unaware of their existence. Ex. A, Far from the i11fol'1'l.'lation in the videotapes being Brcu(y ma.terial, I believe that they actually bolstered the State's ca.se in that they constituted yet another recorded instance of Tarde Williams positi'vely and unwaveringly identifying Michael Anderson as the ITIu,del'er of the five victims. Had 1 known of the tape's existence, I would have infonned Mr. Alford and we would have discussed how best to utilize them to om benefit. The inconsistencies in Ms. Willi8.\ns ' statements were relatively minor when compared to a recorded statenlent obtained by the defense in which she stated that she had Ilot witnessed the murders. I am not awat'e, nor do I believe, that any individual attomey at the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office intentionally withheld the videotaped interview of TOI:rie Williams. Even had the tapes been exculpatory, such intentional withholding'would have been contrary to the pattern of disclosul'e that the State had established during the tria1. 2 Ex. C. Before trial, the State complied with its obligations under Brady and turned over the 11.1uch-r:n:ore detrimental statement of Odey Cook, an alleged eyewitness who ha.d informed the Office that he had seen the murders and that Michael Anderson was not the perpetrator. Id. The intentional withholding of exculpatory ll1atel'ial in a capital murder is a,eprehensible act of which I am eth ically jllcapab Ie.. 1 appreciate your taking the time to review this letter and 1 am more than willing to address any further quest{ons or concerns that you may have. Sincerely, Kevin Guillory Attorney-at-Law. 2 With regards to what the COl..lrt found to be Ronnie Morgan's alleged "secret plea deal," no such deal has ever existed. Ronnie Morgan's plea was a matter of public record and., in fact, is conceptually identical to the plea that Michael Anderson undertook in both federal court and in the instant case. That deal too is a matter of public record

7 2:24PM~I.:l,l,.c:Suite 3000,V'.u J.UJ.L......,....J...,.,... --~--No, 1417 p, 8/61 OFFICE OF rhe DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 4000 S. ShelWood Forest Blvd. Suite 607 Baton Rouge, Louisiana (225) FAX (225) June 7, 2011 Kevin Pa.ul Guillory 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA RE: RESPONDENT: COMPLAJNANT: FILENO.: Kevin Paul Guillory ODe Dear Mr. Guillory: I am closing this.file. O. Fred Ours Deputy Disciplinary Counsel GFOIki.',., '" I. ",' ":'