Across the state of Louisiana, our criminal court system is broken. We all know it and have known it for many years. Despite this, until recently, no one seemed willing to do the work to fix it. Others will downright block any attempt even to conduct a meaningful evaluation! Perhaps this is one reason Senator Jay Morris (R 9/10) has a constitutional amendment scheduled for December’s ballot. We’ll crack that open in another article soon. However, if you’re curious now, the resolution creating that amendment is available as Act 405 from the 2024 regular session.
I bet you haven’t heard about HB792 (Act 724).
HB792 is a substitute bill. It replaced HB343, brought by Representative Tony Bacala (R 8/10) in the 2024 regular session. We reported on and were closely following the Timely Delivery of Justice Act. But even we were shocked at how quickly the sacred cows rose up to quash the bill. For some reason, the image of cows in a Chick-fil-A commercial holding up signs reading “Kill The Bill” comes to mind.
HB792 reads:
Beginning on January 1, 2025, the clerk of court for each judicial district shall provide a daily electronic submission to the Louisiana Supreme Court containing the data elements enumerated in Code of Criminal Procedure Article 388(A), as well as the date of initiation of prosecution, the date of adjudication, and the number of days from initiation of prosecution to adjudication for all criminal cases. The Louisiana Supreme Court shall include a summary of this information, broken down by judicial district, in its annual report.
That’s it! Two metrics need to be reported: the number of criminal cases initiated and the number of criminal cases completed. Nothing else!
What happened?
On March 26, 2024, Bacala appeared before the House Criminal Justice and Administration Committee to present HB343. While pointing out that they opposed his bill, he opened by inviting representatives of District Attorneys and Judges to join him at the table. Bacala explained his original bill and that Louisiana is an outlier, as at least thirty-nine other states have adopted standards for prosecuting criminal cases. Bacala then asked, “You know why we don’t have standards? In response to his own question, he stated, “Because standards are hard to meet.”
The substitute bill was then read into the record. Bacala spoke about the substitute bill, indicating that “we have no baseline” to determine the number of cases adjudicated in Louisiana. Bacala described HB343 as a “home run” and HB792 as getting the batter to first base. Of course, a batter can reach first base in many ways, but he didn’t imply hitting a single. The batter could be walked, hit by a pitch, or even struck out, with the catcher dropping the ball and successfully making it to first base. We will have to categorize this one as a strikeout.
Sacred Cows opposed the bill.
First, Judge Glenn Asardi, a representative of the District Judges Association, Appellate Judges Association, and City Court Judges Association, spoke. Asardi described the bill as a “big change” and had real concerns about how it would impact how we (Judges) do things. He followed that statement by saying he had not even read the bill! Then, he indicated that HB792 created “more of a reporting requirement.” We will delve into that further in a bit.
Jack Daniels, with the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, spoke next. He agreed with much of what Bacala was originally trying to accomplish. Mr. Daniels’s opposition was solely because he didn’t believe it considered the difficulties District Attorneys would face when trying to reach the standards. He asserted a conservative estimate in the fiscal note would require a 25% increase in rank-and-file prosecutors along with additional motions dates, trial dates, and law enforcement manpower to investigate crimes.
Mr. Daniels also brought up the demand this would place on the Crime Lab, which severely lags behind. Interestingly enough, he specifically mentioned the Crime Lab telling a prosecutor that they would not be able to get the results of a rape kit absent a trial date being set. Yet, he opposed standards that would help ensure trial dates occurred earlier in a prosecution.
Mr. Daniels went on to admit that there is a need for a baseline. We need to understand what the problem is as it exists. Interestingly, Mr. Daniels identified what he believes the problems are: lack of funding/staff for prosecutors, lack of funding/staff for police investigators, lack of motion and trial dates, back-up in the crime lab, etc. He stated that this could quickly become a case of prosecutors pointing at defense attorneys and defense attorneys pointing at prosecutors.
The fiscal note is a blessing.
Bacala referred to the fiscal note as a “blessing,” indicating that it is the first time anyone has ever said that they needed a 25% increase in staff to prosecute offenders effectively. He also mentioned that the slowdown in the Crime Lab was also a significant issue, which they were already aware of. Bacala then pointed out that the studies tend to show that the considerable hold-up in systems deals with the policies that contribute to the slow pace of courts, including granting multiple continuances.
Representative Cox asked Bacala if his substitute bill would help identify and refine these issues. Bacala replied:
My original bill did a better job of it, but I realize the uphill climb and lift on that.
The men sitting to Bacala’s left and right, District Attorneys and Judges, represented the uphill climb he was referencing. In our efforts to explore the crime problem locally, we submitted a public records request to the 16th Judicial District Attorney’s Office in March of 2023 seeking: “Statistical reports, graphs or data reflecting the number of cases prosecuted, dismissed or adjudicated in the Parish of St. Martin for the year of 2022.” Again, this is just a request for the same data that must now be reported under HB792. Our request was acknowledged on April 10, 2023, with the boilerplate response that it would take 30 days to determine whether there were any responsive documents. Instead, it took the District Attorney over a year!
On April 19, 2024, the 16th Judicial District Attorney’s Office responded with:
No list, report, or record exists containing the information requested in the format requested (No specific format was requested). This information would have to be gathered and compiled from a number of different sources and no public body is required to sort the information contained throughout its office in a special way or run a special report.
So, how do we determine something is broken if elected officials refuse even to track it?
“When you have no expectation, you’re probably going to meet it.”
Bacala spoke these wise words in committee, “When you have no expectation, you’re probably going to meet it.” That sums up our criminal court system! Unfortunately, the substitute bill gutted any expectation of the issues being resolved. The requirements outlined in HB792 only call for an annual report of the number of cases entering the system and the number of adjudicated cases. As Bacala said, “It won’t tell us where the problems are.” It will only confirm what we all already know. We have cases entering into the criminal justice system at a faster pace than they can be adjudicated. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT! The problem is no one in the criminal court system wanted to track it in writing.
The Sacred Cows lined up to gut the creation of any expectations which could be imposed on them. The original bill established timelines the criminal justice system should attempt to meet. There were no ramifications for not meeting them. However, the judges and prosecutors aren’t willing to set basic standards for which to aim. The original bill required the Louisiana Supreme Court to adopt rules to implement the standards subject to legislative oversight. It required elected officials of each Judicial District, consisting of the Clerk of Court, District Attorney, and Chief Judge, to be part of a Board. They would be responsible for formulating plans necessary to meet the standards and to collect meaningful data to measure compliance.
Again, if jurisdictions could not meet the timelines and standards, they would be no worse off today. They would likely be better off because the data collected could actually identify problems we know exist. They would then report that data to the Supreme Court and publish it for the average citizen.
Baloney
All this talk about needing a 25% increase in staff is nonsense. How hard is it to keep statistics on what you are already doing? This is just another attempt to avoid any accountability. With proper data collection, a District Attorney could make a good-faith argument for supplementing the resources available to his office: “If I only had sufficient resources, I could produce better results.” But for now, we have just kicked the can down the road for the criminal court system’s actual reform. At least the legislature has finally mandated that the courts start tracking the data.
Our next article on this topic will address Senator Jay Morris‘s upcoming constitutional amendment proposal, scheduled for December’s ballot. In it, Morris hopes to disrupt the criminal court system’s sacred cow mentality. It’s also critical to remember that none of Morris’s or Bacala’s recommendations involves reinventing wheels. These are all incremental but common-sense approaches to improving our criminal court system. The sacred cows don’t even want an honest evaluation. So, don’t fall for the gimmicks of “Eat-Mor-Chikin.” It’s time to slay some sacred cows!
###
Citizens for a New Louisiana is excited to invite you to participate in our Banquet and Silent Auction, Champions of Change: Spot-Lighting the Movement to de-woke government institutions. Our honored guest, James Lindsay, Ph.D., is a world-renowned Enlightenment advocate who champions conservative values like reason, individual rights, and free speech. Lindsay argues that Critical Theory, especially in modern iterations like Critical Race Theory (CRT), gender studies, Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), etc., undermines traditional scholarship, science, and societal norms.
The founder of New Discourses, Dr. James Lindsay, is a vocal critic of modern educational and governmental policies that aim to reshape cultural norms through “Social Justice” frameworks. Dr. Lindsay, an author known for exposing the mechanisms of “Critical Social Justice,” will delve into how these ideologies are funded by tax dollars and implemented in our educational systems, public libraries, and government policies.
Special thanks to our event sponsors. Find out how you can become a sponsor by emailing us at [email protected]. 
