Issue Position: Judicial Reform

Issue Position

I support legislation that requires judges to recuse themselves from cases in which an involved attorney has contributed directly or indirectly to their campaign. Under Canon 1.2 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct, judges have a duty to avoid "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Under Canon 2, Rule, 2.11, a judge has an ethical responsibility to perform judicial duties impartially, and to "disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Disqualification is specifically required if the judge knows that a party has made campaign contributions benefiting the the judge. (The model rule leaves the threshold amount of the contribution an open question.) Further, according to Comment 5 to Rule 2.11, a judge has a duty to disclose information that litigants might find relevant to a disqualification motion, like whether either parties or their lawyers have made campaign contributions, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification. Several states have adopted these provisions of the Model Code through statute, rule, or ethical code, requiring judges to recuse themselves if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned (See Supreme Court case Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 [2009]). The ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution encouraging states to require disclosure of "litigants and lawyers who have provided, directly or indirectly, campaign support in an election involving a judge before whom they are appearing" (2011 Resolution 107, Judicial Disqualification and Disclosure). Thus, disclosure is not only considered the best practice by the profession at this point, but may become mandatory.
I support an annual review and audit of the judicial budget for Louisiana's courts. According to LABI, this particular budget item increases every year regardless of our state deficit.
I support establishing separate family courts in each parish. Currently, the only parish with a designated, specialized family court system is in East Baton Rouge Parish. Family Courts would have jurisdiction over certain matters, including divorces, community property division, spousal support, child visitation, child custody, child support, and domestic violence. Family Courts would provide a Self Help Resource Center, which would serve as a starting point for litigants who represent themselves as a result of their inability to retain an attorney or qualify for free legal services (Source: The Family Court in & for the Parish of East Baton Rouge)
I strongly oppose cuts to our State Public Defenders and legal aid organizations in Louisiana.
I strongly support drastically revamping the state's "user pay" legal system for criminal defendants.
I strongly support requiring judges to consider a defendant's ability to pay before they impose fines, ending arrests for non-payment (excluding for felonies and child support), capping how much municipalities can generate from traffic enforcement, and forgiving aged debts. Defendants' fines and fees often pad judicial budgets, thereby providing an incentive for finding defendants guilty and liable for unreasonable fine; there is a fundamental conflict of interest when judges set the fees that pay for their courts' budgets (Source: "Supreme Court panel urges revamp of Louisiana's 'user pay' criminal justice system, but implementing it will be hard", The Advocate)
I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds and will work to abolish it in Louisiana.
I support bail reform measures in our courts.
"No one should be held in jail awaiting trial for the sole reason that they have the financial inability to pay. Should they be there if they are a danger to the community? Yes. A flight risk? Sure. Simply because they are poor? No. The opposite is also true: should a dangerous person who poses a risk to the community be able to get out of jail simply because they do have money? Most assuredly no.

Here's the problem: how can judges accurately make bail decisions? The simple answer is by giving them access to as much reliable information as possible, as early on in the process as possible.

Here's how:

Equal Representation: The prosecution and defense should be present for the initial bail hearing. On one side, a prosecutor should be present to give the Court as much information as is known at the time about the facts of the offense, the history of the arrestee (including criminal history and performance on previous bonds, probation, or parole), and any information related to the well-being of a victim. On the other side, the arrestee should be represented by counsel whether they can afford one or not. That attorney can present as much information as possible regarding the background of the defendant that is not necessarily reflected in their criminal history: where they work, where and with whom they live, the well-being of their children, and where they will go if released among other things. The attorneys can also present any relevant facts that might explain either mitigating or aggravating circumstances of the alleged crime.
Speedy, Public Hearings: These hearings need to happen within 24 hours of the arrest. They need to be open to the public, and findings need to be made on the record.
Use of a Validated Risk-Assessment: Many courts across the country use a risk assessment tool. Background Information is collected and objectively scored with a view towards predicting the likelihood that a person would return to court. The higher the score, the more likely the person will abscond; the lower, the less likely. The value of a tool like this is that it is it is based purely on data; the danger is that if the data reflects racial inequalities, the score based on the data will, too. As such, any tool should be but one factor for a Court to consider, and not as an inflexible substitute for judicial discretion. (See endnotes for a Harvard Law Review Article, and an excellent article by Beth Schwartzapfel from The Marshall Project). Courts should be required to collect, preserve and analyze data showing the successes and failures of bail determinations. That information should be publicly available. Every group with an interest in ensuring fairness and accuracy in pretrial release (e.g., private, academic, journalists) should be encouraged to analyze the data and share their findings in an effort to evaluate and improve the system.
Notice to the Victim: Should an arrestee make bail, the victim of the alleged crime should be immediately notified.
Alternatives to Incarceration: Keeping in mind that the purpose of bail is to ensure that the arrestee will return to court and not punish them for allegedly committing a crime, pretrial release departments should be properly staffed, funded and armed with reliable tools that ensure a return to court to answer the charge. Text reminders, more frequent check-ins with pretrial officers, and in the appropriate case, ankle monitors have all proven to be highly effective, less costly, and less intrusive on a person's life than remaining in jail. Obviously, there are costs associated with these alternatives to incarceration, but those costs are far cheaper than the estimated 50-70 dollars a day per inmate jails cost taxpayers.

Source