From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Dameron

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Sep 16, 1971
448 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1971)

Summary

holding that district court erred in placing burden of proof on defendants to show good faith prosecution

Summary of this case from Wightman-Cervantes v. State

Opinion

No. 71-1483 Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

September 16, 1971.

Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Emile C. Rolfs, III, Baton Rouge, La., Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron Fritchie, Baton Rouge, La., for Charles H. Dameron, Dist. Atty., Ad Hoc, defendant-appellee.

Cheney C. Joseph, Jr., Ralph L. Roy, Baton Rouge, La., for Sargent Pitcher.

Carlos G. Spaht, Baton Rouge, La., for John S. Covington,

Joseph F. Keogh, Baton Rouge, La., William M. Shaw, Homer, La., for Capt. Watson Sargent Pitcher.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.



Plaintiff-appellant Stewart brought this action seeking injunctive relief and damages under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendants-appellees, who are various law enforcement officers for the Parish and City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiff, a VISTA worker active in a black community in the Baton Rouge area, alleged that he was a victim of a police conspiracy to entrap him. Plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from further state court prosecution on a pending charge of conspiracy to commit murder.

The district court, after holding a hearing on the merits, denied the injunctive relief sought and dismissed plaintiff's suit, 321 F. Supp. 886. At this hearing the district court placed the burden of proof on the State to prove the good faith of its prosecution, and plaintiff Stewart was not allowed to put on any evidence concerning his allegations of bad faith prosecution and harassment. In essence, the court placed the entire burden of proof on the prosecution, a move to which both parties disagreed.

The attorney for defendant Dameron told the court:
"My appreciation of the law, your Honor, is that in a matter such as this, the plaintiff would be required to put on any evidence that he may have with respect to improper motivation of the prosecuting attorney."

We hold that the district court erred by placing the burden of proof on the defendants. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and for the appropriate evidentiary hearing required thereby, in which plaintiff shall be allowed to introduce evidence regarding his allegations of bad faith prosecution and harassment.

Vacated and remanded.


Summaries of

Stewart v. Dameron

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Sep 16, 1971
448 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1971)

holding that district court erred in placing burden of proof on defendants to show good faith prosecution

Summary of this case from Wightman-Cervantes v. State
Case details for

Stewart v. Dameron

Case Details

Full title:Frank STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles H. DAMERON, District…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Sep 16, 1971

Citations

448 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

Wightman-Cervantes v. State

See Stewart v. Dameron, 460 F.2d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 1972) (recognizing that "the plaintiff has a heavy burden…

Wilson v. Thompson

The use of the disjunctive has been repeated in other cases. See, e.g., Perez v. Ledesma, 1971, 401 U.S. 82,…