12 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2024See State v White, 153 So.2d 401, 408-09 (La. 1963) (conviction vacated where parties disqualified a sworn juror in an ex parte hearing, outside the presence of the defendant); State v Copeland, 419 So.2d 899, 905 (La. 1982) (conviction vacated where trial judge disqualified sworn jurors outside the presence of the defendant without a hearing); State v Clay, 441 So.2d 1227, 1230 (La. 2023See State v. White, 153 So. 2d 401 , 408- 09 ( La. 1963) ( conviction vacated where parties disqualified a sworn juror in an ex parte hearing, outside the presence of the defendant); State v. Copeland, 419 So. 2d 899, 905 ( La. 1982) conviction vacated where trial judge disqualified sworn jurors outside the presence of the defendant without a hearing); State v. Clay, 441 So.2d 1227, 1230 ( La. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Claygreen2 sentences2024See State v White, 153 So.2d 401, 408-09 (La. 1963) (conviction vacated where parties disqualified a sworn juror in an ex parte hearing, outside the presence of the defendant); State v Copeland, 419 So.2d 899, 905 (La. 1982) (conviction vacated where trial judge disqualified sworn jurors outside the presence of the defendant without a hearing); State v Clay, 441 So.2d 1227, 1230 (La. 2023See State v. White, 153 So. 2d 401 , 408- 09 ( La. 1963) ( conviction vacated where parties disqualified a sworn juror in an ex parte hearing, outside the presence of the defendant); State v. Copeland, 419 So. 2d 899, 905 ( La. 1982) conviction vacated where trial judge disqualified sworn jurors outside the presence of the defendant without a hearing); State v. Clay, 441 So.2d 1227, 1230 ( La. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Copelandgreen2 sentences2024See State v White, 153 So.2d 401, 408-09 (La. 1963) (conviction vacated where parties disqualified a sworn juror in an ex parte hearing, outside the presence of the defendant); State v Copeland, 419 So.2d 899, 905 (La. 1982) (conviction vacated where trial judge disqualified sworn jurors outside the presence of the defendant without a hearing); State v Clay, 441 So.2d 1227, 1230 (La. 2023See State v. White, 153 So. 2d 401 , 408- 09 ( La. 1963) ( conviction vacated where parties disqualified a sworn juror in an ex parte hearing, outside the presence of the defendant); State v. Copeland, 419 So. 2d 899, 905 ( La. 1982) conviction vacated where trial judge disqualified sworn jurors outside the presence of the defendant without a hearing); State v. Clay, 441 So.2d 1227, 1230 ( La. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Touchetgreen2 sentences2018Cf. Touchet , 93-2839, p. 12 , 642 So.2d at 1220 ("During the review of this interlocutory ruling, the application for funding and the trial court reasons for its denial or granting of an ex parte hearing shall both remain under seal so as to protect the defendant's case in the event of a favorable ruling.). 2006State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La.9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213, 1221 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bridgewatergreen2 sentences2016State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 at pp. 20-21, 823 So.2d at 896 . 2016State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 at pp. 20-21, 823 So.2d at 896 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lemoinegreen1 sentence2019See State v. Harris , 18-KP-0686 (La. 6/15/18), 245 So.3d 1036 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that defendant's generic allegation of prejudice did not rise to the level necessary for an ex parte hearing for public funds for a Miller hearing); See also State v. Pascual , 16-KP-2167 (La. 6/29/17), 222 So.3d 35 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that "neither Miller nor Montgomery expressly requires government funding for an expert witness in every instance...." and "the necessity of an expert witness should be determined on a case-by-case basis). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pascualgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Harris , 18-KP-0686 (La. 6/15/18), 245 So.3d 1036 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that defendant's generic allegation of prejudice did not rise to the level necessary for an ex parte hearing for public funds for a Miller hearing); See also State v. Pascual , 16-KP-2167 (La. 6/29/17), 222 So.3d 35 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that "neither Miller nor Montgomery expressly requires government funding for an expert witness in every instance...." and "the necessity of an expert witness should be determined on a case-by-case basis). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2016Notwithstanding, any trial court error in this respect appears harmless under State v. Draughn, supra, and Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (“The inquiry . . . is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”). 2016Notwithstanding, any trial court error in this respect appears harmless under State v. Draughn, supra, and Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (“The inquiry . . . is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Browngreen1 sentence2015See also United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 , 1034 (11th Cir.2005); United State v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 , 971 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582, 602 (5th Cir.2002). | i/The above-listed factors, while extensive, are not exhaustive, and district judges may, and should, consider any other appropriate argument presented during the ex parte hearing by the redacting party- IV We review a trial judge’s ruling to maintain a redacting party’s deletion or excision of a witness’s identifying information under an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2015See 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2015See 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 792413green1 sentence2015See also United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 , 1034 (11th Cir.2005); United State v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 , 971 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582, 602 (5th Cir.2002). | i/The above-listed factors, while extensive, are not exhaustive, and district judges may, and should, consider any other appropriate argument presented during the ex parte hearing by the redacting party- IV We review a trial judge’s ruling to maintain a redacting party’s deletion or excision of a witness’s identifying information under an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waltersgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Walters, 408 So.2d 1337, 1340 (La.1982) 8 (“[U]nless contrary to law, rulings of the trial judge in pretrial matters are generally shown great deference by this Court absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”) (punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harpergreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Harper, 10-0356, pp. 10-13, 53 So.3d at 1270 -72 And, on that account, the trial judge appropriately did not undertake a review of the prosecutor’s files but limited the ex parte hearing to the specified purpose allowed by Article 729.7 A. Thus, to be clear, our decision, like that of the trial judge, does not involve any assessment of whether the disclosure of the now-concealed identities of the witnesses may otherwise be required of the prosecution. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Legreen2 sentences2015We granted Mr. Le’s writ and remanded the matter for the trial judge to ^conduct an ex parte hearing in compliance with Article 729.7 A. See State v. Le, 15-0014, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/15), 165 So.3d 242, 244 . 2015See La.C.Cr.P. art. 729.7 A. See also Le, 15-0014, p. 8, 165 So.3d at 246 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langloisgreen1 sentence1994See State v. Langlois, supra (ordering the trial court to make funds available for defense expenses "for the purpose set forth in the in chambers showing made in the trial court"); State v. Benoit, 576 So.2d 41 (La.1991) (per curiam) (granting defendant's request for an ex parte hearing on her application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Larson, 548 So.2d 945 (La. 1989) (per curiam) (reversing a trial court's ruling to unseal the record of an in camera ex parte hearing on defendant's application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Madison, supra, (positing that problems of rev | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George D. Meriwethergreen2 sentences1994In United States v. Meriwether, 486 F.2d 498, 506 (5th Cir.1973), the court illustrated the purpose of having such applications and the proceedings surrounding them discussed in an ex parte hearing. 1994The court stated that holding the hearings in an ex parte manner would "shield the theory of the [indigent's] defense from the prosecutor's scrutiny." Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge
green
2 sentences2024App. 1st Cir. 1983), writ denied, 446 So.2d 1213 (La. 1984). 2023App. 1st Cir. 1983), writ denied, 446 So. 2d 1213 ( La. 1984). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
United States v. Larry L. Horton
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 1418 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2016In this case, the defendant claims he made a “clear showing” that he and Mr. English had a “catastrophic conflict” in their attorney-client relationship, which at a bare minimum, required the trial judge to conduct an ex parte hearing, as was done in State v. Bridgewater, supra, and State v. Campbell, 06-0286 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 810 .29 Indeed, on July 26, 2011, Mr. English asked the trial 29 Importantly, as discussed in the defendant’s second assignment herein, on July 26, 2011, the defendant did not make a clear and unequivocal assertion of his right to waive counsel and represent himse 2016In this case, the defendant claims he made a “clear showing” that he and Mr. English had a “catastrophic conflict” in their attorney-client relationship, which at a bare minimum, required the trial judge to conduct an ex parte hearing, as was done in State v. Bridgewater, supra, and State v. Campbell, 06-0286 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 810 . 29 Indeed, on July 26, 2011, Mr. English asked the trial 13F,court for an ex parte hearing to air the divergent defense theories between counsel and client, which the trial court declined, telling Mr. English, “[Y]ou are the attorney, sir ... [a]nd you have | 1 | 2016–2016 |
cluster 783483
green
1 sentence2015See also United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 , 1034 (11th Cir.2005); United State v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 , 971 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582, 602 (5th Cir.2002). | i/The above-listed factors, while extensive, are not exhaustive, and district judges may, and should, consider any other appropriate argument presented during the ex parte hearing by the redacting party- IV We review a trial judge’s ruling to maintain a redacting party’s deletion or excision of a witness’s identifying information under an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Fussell
green
1 sentence2009In support of this contention, Defendant cited State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877, 888 , for the proposition that "[c]ourts routinely use ex parte proceedings, including situations where counsel provokes a hearing on a motion to withdraw due to `irreconcilable conflict.'" In opposition, the State contends "there is nothing in the original or supplemental record to suggest that there was any type of irreconcilable conflict or failure of representation by appointed counsel which would rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Accordingly, the State argues although | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Wille
green
1 sentence2009In support of this contention, Defendant cited State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877, 888 , for the proposition that "[c]ourts routinely use ex parte proceedings, including situations where counsel provokes a hearing on a motion to withdraw due to `irreconcilable conflict.'" In opposition, the State contends "there is nothing in the original or supplemental record to suggest that there was any type of irreconcilable conflict or failure of representation by appointed counsel which would rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Accordingly, the State argues although | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Fussell
green
1 sentence2009In support of this contention, Defendant cited State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877, 888 , for the proposition that "[c]ourts routinely use ex parte proceedings, including situations where counsel provokes a hearing on a motion to withdraw due to `irreconcilable conflict.'" In opposition, the State contends "there is nothing in the original or supplemental record to suggest that there was any type of irreconcilable conflict or failure of representation by appointed counsel which would rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Accordingly, the State argues although | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Jones-Bey v. Duckworth
green
1 sentence2009In support of this contention, Defendant cited State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877, 888 , for the proposition that "[c]ourts routinely use ex parte proceedings, including situations where counsel provokes a hearing on a motion to withdraw due to `irreconcilable conflict.'" In opposition, the State contends "there is nothing in the original or supplemental record to suggest that there was any type of irreconcilable conflict or failure of representation by appointed counsel which would rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Accordingly, the State argues although | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ziegler v. Champion
green
1 sentence2009In support of this contention, Defendant cited State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877, 888 , for the proposition that "[c]ourts routinely use ex parte proceedings, including situations where counsel provokes a hearing on a motion to withdraw due to `irreconcilable conflict.'" In opposition, the State contends "there is nothing in the original or supplemental record to suggest that there was any type of irreconcilable conflict or failure of representation by appointed counsel which would rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Accordingly, the State argues although | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Miller v. Smith
green
1 sentence1997Miller v. Smith, 391 So.2d 1263 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Miller v. Smith
green
1 sentence1997Miller v. Smith, 402 So.2d 688 (La.1981). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Madison
green
1 sentence1994See State v. Langlois, supra (ordering the trial court to make funds available for defense expenses "for the purpose set forth in the in chambers showing made in the trial court"); State v. Benoit, 576 So.2d 41 (La.1991) (per curiam) (granting defendant's request for an ex parte hearing on her application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Larson, 548 So.2d 945 (La. 1989) (per curiam) (reversing a trial court's ruling to unseal the record of an in camera ex parte hearing on defendant's application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Madison, supra, (positing that problems of rev | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Larson
neutral
1 sentence1994See State v. Langlois, supra (ordering the trial court to make funds available for defense expenses "for the purpose set forth in the in chambers showing made in the trial court"); State v. Benoit, 576 So.2d 41 (La.1991) (per curiam) (granting defendant's request for an ex parte hearing on her application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Larson, 548 So.2d 945 (La. 1989) (per curiam) (reversing a trial court's ruling to unseal the record of an in camera ex parte hearing on defendant's application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Madison, supra, (positing that problems of rev | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State ex rel. Green v. Whitley
neutral
1 sentence1994See State v. Langlois, supra (ordering the trial court to make funds available for defense expenses "for the purpose set forth in the in chambers showing made in the trial court"); State v. Benoit, 576 So.2d 41 (La.1991) (per curiam) (granting defendant's request for an ex parte hearing on her application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Larson, 548 So.2d 945 (La. 1989) (per curiam) (reversing a trial court's ruling to unseal the record of an in camera ex parte hearing on defendant's application for funds for expert assistance); State v. Madison, supra, (positing that problems of rev | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.