Jeff Crouere, a commentator on WGSO 990-AM, called the indictment against Liz Murrill political theater.
A grand jury indictment against Attorney General Liz Murrill is going nowhere in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling that stayed the criminal complaint and found “disturbing defects” in the legal proceedings, Louisiana commentators say.
An Orleans Parish grand jury indicted Murrill last week on 16 felony counts related to letters she sent to the New Orleans mayor, district attorney and five City Council members last month. The letters concerned a dispute over a new state law that eliminated the parish’s Clerk of Criminal Court post and transferred the office’s duties to the civil court clerk.
Murrill said in the letters that the parish officials could lose their elected positions under Louisiana’s usurper laws because they were seeking to hold a special election to determine who would head the consolidated clerk’s office. The indictment accused Murrill of multiple counts of public intimidation and malfeasance in office.
But the state’s high court on Friday said Murrill had raised important constitutional and legal issues challenging the grand jury’s actions.
“In this case the attorney general makes a compelling argument concerning the disturbing defects in the grand jury proceedings and in the trial court’s handling of those proceedings,” the Supreme Court said in a 4-3 decision. “This indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties.”
Jeff Crouere, a broadcaster and political commentator, criticized Orleans Parish officials for advancing the indictment.
“The indictments issued by the Orleans Parish grand jury against Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill are examples of pure political theater and have no chance of success,” Crouere told the Louisiana Record in an email. “It is the latest desperate attempt by Orleans Parish officials to attack the attorney general for doing her job.”
The majority of Louisiana residents, the high court, Gov. Jeff Landry and state lawmakers all support Murrill’s actions, he said.
“Orleans Parish officials would be better served by focusing on the problems in their city rather than attacking state elected officials, like the attorney general, who are only trying to solve long-standing problems in New Orleans,” Crouere said.
A Loyola law professor, Dane Ciolino, told WWL-TV that the Supreme Court’s opinion effectively sidelines the indictment.
"It's clear to me from the language of this Supreme Court order that this indictment is dead," Ciolino said. "It's just being sent back (to criminal district court) for the nails to be put in the coffin."
The high court’s July 3 opinion says the parish’s special prosecutor in the grand jury probe, Laurie White, previously represented Calvin Duncan, who won his election in November to serve as the parish’s criminal court clerk but was prevented from taking office due to the clerk consolidation law. In addition, White is now being defended by Murrill’s office in a sexual harassment case. Such ties represent likely conflicts of interest, the court’s majority said.
The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court also violated provisions of state law requiring that grand jury decisions be made in public, the Supreme Court opinion says.
But not everyone agrees with Murrill’s arguments. In a dissent, Chief Justice John Weimer said the majority’s order goes well beyond a simple stay of the indictment. Weimer criticized the majority for short-circuiting the normal legal processes in this case and recalling the alias capias warrant against Murrill.
“The grand jury that issued the indictment consisted of ordinary citizens randomly summoned and chosen to serve,” he said in his dissent. “In theory, the role of the grand jury is designed to prevent prosecutorial overreach. Here, a prosecutor is essentially demanding that the efforts of these jurors be disregarded.”
