LAW OFFICES OF FRED L. HERMAN A PROFESSIONAL LAW

Transcription

1 Sep :05AM Suite 3000 No P. 2 FBED L. HERMAN FBERMAN@J.?RJ!:DlDLRMAN:LAW.COM DJ:RECf DIAL: (504) THOMAS J. BARBERA TBARBERA@FREDHERMANLAW.COM DIRECT DIAL: (504) LAW OFFICES OF FRED L. HERMAN A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1010 COMMON STREET, SUITE 3000 NEW ORLEANS, LA TELEPHONE: (504) 581 ~ 7070 TELEFAX: (504) ASSOCJA.T!ij COWSELI MAYRA t. SCHEUERMANN MSCa: OJt'RM:Alffl@»'RED~AW.COM DIu(;T Dw.: (S04) S8~.1082 NURsE PARALEGAL: l' A TlUctA M. SlIARl':&, R.N. l'sllalu'jlj@fll.ed~w.co~ DIRECT DIAL: (504) 212-4l62 Chief Disciplinary Counsel La. Attorney Disciplinary Board 4000 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd., Suite 607 Baton Rouge, LA VIA TELEFAX RE: Respondents: Complainant: Complaint No.: Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., Samuel S. Dalton (Michael Anderson) Dear:Mr. Plattsmier: This is in response to the inquiry made by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel directed to Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro. I am repr~~enting DA Cannizzaro; Background The Complaint begins with a claim that "'Judge Linda Van Davis Orleans Parish Criminal District Court ordered a new trial for Mr. Michael Anderson because prosecutorial misconduct had tainted the first one" This must be put in context. As the District Attorney explains in the interviews attached to the Complaint, the crime occurred in July At that time. following Hurricane Katrina, the District Attorney's Offices were housed in several temporary locations. There were originally two files in this case, the first file was not prossed and dismissed, then the New Orleans Police Department called a press conference and there is the witness the District Attorneys Office said they could not find, MS.Torie Williams. A second file was opened and a Grand Jury issued an indictment. Thereafter, District Attorney Leon Carulizzaro took office. The case was tried in Late After the trial, the District

2 Sep :05AM Suite 3000 No P. 3 : PageZ Attorney's regular offices at 619 South White Street were re-opened and all of the materials, boxes, etc..., located in the temporary offices were packed up and moved back to the regular facilities. An Assistant District Attorney, not associated with the case, was removing material from a box and discovered the taped interview of Torie Williams. The District Attorney's Office immediately turned over a copy of the tape to defense counsel. No attempts were made to hide or conceal the tape that was in the District Attorney's possession, but unfortunately misplaced. Thereafter, Mr. Andersou's'Counsel filed a Motion for New Trial. On March 7, 2010 the Court granted the new trial. To put this in better perspective, as reported in the news "Van Davis (the trial judge) conceded from the bench Tuesday that her ruling to vacate Anderson's death sentence was "very difficult." '1 didn't want to upset the jury's verdict of death~ " Van Davis said. "The reason I reversed your case is that r wanted to sl eep well at night the day 1 signed your death warrant." -WWltv.colU Posted on April 24, 2012 at 4:40 PM. Subsequently, Anderson took responsibility for the five murders and was sentenced to serve five eighty year tenns to run concurrent and coterminous with his Federallife sentence. A previous complaint was made to the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Kevin Guillory in 2001, regarding the taped interview of Torrie Williams, the matter was dismissed. THE ALLEGED IMPROPER EXTRAIDDrCIAL STATEMENTS The Anderson case was a maj or high profile case in New Orleans, following in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After the ruling granting a new trial, all news outlets were looking for information and an explanation of the posture of the case. The Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 3.6(a) provides as follows: (a) A lavvyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation ofa matter shall.notmake an,extrajudicial statement thatthe la:wyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public commu..~ication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. The Rule only prohibits extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows will have a substantial likelihood ofmaterially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Additionally, Rule 3.6(b) specifically pennits statements regarding (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and except when prohibited by law, the identity of the person involved; (2) infonnation contained in the public record;... (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation. In this case, all of DistrictAttomey Cannizzaro's statements were regarding the then current step in the litigation~ i.e. the granting of a new trial, and virtually everything referred to was already in the public

3 ~ep. LO. LOU 11:05AM Suite 3000 No P. 4 Mr. Charles B. PlattsIIlier Page 3 record. Each of the alleged offensive statements are addressed separately below: March 8, 20 I 0 statements The Complaint cites statements made by District Attorney to the effect that Mr. Anderson is a murderer. He shot and killed five teenagers. He was a murderer on June the 17th, 2006 when he perpetrated this massacre. He was a murderer when a jury comprised onf members of this community convicted him in Today he is still a murderer and an adverse ruling on a motion for a new trial from a Criminal District Judge cannot change that. The Grand Jury returned an Indictment on Mr. Anderson on June 1 ~ 2006 which is part of the public record it states that MI. Anderson "committed the crime of First Degree Murder" it goes on to identify the names of the five murder victims. These statements specifically fall under Rule 3.6(b) (1), (2) and (4). The District Attorney was explaining the result of the trial Court's mling on the Motion for a new trial and the infonnation is in the public record. March 16, 2010 Radio Interview The Complaintant suggests that the DistricJ Attorney cannot say the killing was "gruesome" and "heinous" and that based upon the evidence the District Attorney is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt it was perpetrated by Michael Anderson. This case was all over the media. from day one. The Complaintant does not explain how sllch statements will have a substantial likelihood ofmateriauy prejudicingan adjudicative proceeding. These same exact statements can be made directly to a jury in opening statements, and again in closing arguments. The District Attorney was doing nothing more than explaining the effect of the previous steps in the litigation. Statements of Torrie Williams The Complaint cites the statements of District Attorney Cannizzaro in an interview on March on WIST. Again, the District Attorney is responding to questions rega,rding the status and result of the case following the order for a new trial. The District Attorney does respond to a question specifically about a television interview. The District Attorney says: 4'Chane14. Bill Cappo,on the steps ofthe court where she's sitting two to three hours, I think maybe. It ma.y have been a little longer than that. But it was very close in time to the homicides. Tome Willi31ns at that point~ says she saw the homicides and it was Mike Mike who was responsible. Mike Mike is the nickname for Michael Anderson. Torrie Williams has never deviated from that statement. I)

4 ~ e p ; 06 AM Suite 3000 No P.5 September 20,2013 Page 4 The Complaint attaches as Exhibit E a tape of a WWL-TV Broadcast of Bill Cappo interviewing Torrie Williams. In that interview, Torrie Williams does not say it was Mike Mike. We believe the District Attomeywas actually referring to a different interview. Perhaps the District Attorney was not as clear as he could have been. A reading of the entire transcript reflects the point being~ that is, from the beginning, Torrie Williams said she saw the shooting. When asked for the first time who the shooter was she identified Mike-Mike (Mr. Anderson). She has never said it was not him, she never said anybody put her up to it. She may have been mistaken to some details, as to the exact time of day certain events may have occurred, but she never said it was not Mike -Mike. All of the transcripts are public record, the interviews are public record. This was all done in response to questions regarding the last step and next step in the litigation. Statements regarding two defense witnesses and a polygraph examination The announcer on WBOK asked the DA "can you take a lie detector test?~' (Page 5 of Exhibit 4 to Complaint.) The District Attorney explained that in this case two witnesses went to the FBI and in one of those cases the FBI gave the witness two polygraph examinations, one was inconclusive and one indicated evidence of deception. The DA went on to specifically say that polygraphs are not admissible as evidence during a trial proceeding, however such examinations are admissible for purposes of a new trial. The Defendant himself filed a Motion for new trial on March 1,2010 and attached thereto copies of the FBI records regarding these witnesses) within the FBI's records were the results of the polygraph exams. The District Attorney was specifically referring to polygraphs relating to motions for new trial. In the interview, the District Attorney stated on more than one occasion, that the Defense could have called these two, or any other witnesses but chose not to. The Complaint suggests that American Bar Standards prohibit a lawyer from disclosing information that he ki'1ows is likely to be inadmissible evidence in a trial, as such would have prejudicial effect on a proceeding. Thereafter the Complaint states that The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled polygraph evidence is inadmissible, therefore they conclude any statement by the District Attorney regarding polygraphs was a violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct. In this case, the District Attorney specifically state that the polygraphs are admissible only to the limited Motion for new trial and otherwise inadinissible. The entire conversation regarding polygraphs was brought up by the Radio host because Mr. Anderson's counsel placed them in the public record and sought a new trial based thereupon. The statements made werenot improper.

5 Sep, 20, :06AM Suite 3000 No, 1268 p, 6 SepUttnber20,2013 Page 5 CONCLUSION This Complaint involves a criminal case that was at the forefront of the news for months. The people were demanding to know what was going on in the steps of the prosecution specifically following the court's order of a new trial in a quintuple murder case. A careful reading ofllie complete transcripts shows that all of the Distrct Attorney' s statements were factual, rather than sensational, emotional attacks on Mr. AndefSons character. All of the the issues and infolidation was already in the public records as the interviewers knew all of the issues, all of the facts, and all of the witnesses. The District Attorney did not violate any Rule of Professional Responsibility. Should you require additional infonnation we would be pleased to provide it or respond to any specific questions you may have. Sincerely,