Opinion
NO. 2016 KW 1092
09-08-2016
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DAVID BROWN
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 17th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, No. 520,401. BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT DENIED. The trial court maintained the defense filings under seal after conducting an in camera inspection of those items and determining that it would be fundamentally unfair and cause substantial prejudice to the defendant to unseal those documents. We find there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its ruling.
JEW
GH
Crain, J., dissents and would grant the writ application. The supreme court has specified that the only basis for maintaining the defense filings under seal is if disclosing them to the state would be "fundamentally unfair" and violate the defendant's right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Brown, 2016-0274 (La. 4/22/16), 192 So.3d 720, 722 (per curiam). The disclosure of these filings does not meet that criteria. Effectively, the trial court's ruling allows defense counsel to thwart the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system by choosing to include in its filings statements that are arguably privileged or confidential. The supreme court has already recognized that the defendant's arguments attempt to extend State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La. 9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213, "far beyond its reach." Brown, 192 So.3d at 722. I agree with Justice Crichton that in this case the defense is being allowed "an extraordinary latitude that cannot be justified under any reasonable reading of Touchet." Brown, 192 So.3d at 722 (Crichton, J., concurring). Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the state's request for relief. I would grant the writ, reverse the trial court's ruling, and order that the filings be unsealed. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT