State ex rel. De Armas v. Platt

• Decision Date: 27 November 1939
• Docket Number: 35569.
• Citation: 193 La. 928,192 So. 659
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DE ARMAS et al. v. PLATT, District judge.

192 So. 659

193 La. 928

STATE ex rel. DE ARMAS et al. v. PLATT, District judge.

No. 35569.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 27, 1939

Proceeding in certiorari, prohibition and mandamus by the State, on the relation of Sidney De Armas and another, against George P Platt, district judge.

Writs denied.

O'NIELL, C. J., and ODOM, J., dissenting.

James J. Morrison, Marian Mayer, Malcolm Monroe Bernard D. Mintz, Moise S. Steeg, Jr., and Samuel Rosenberg, all of New Orleans, for relators.

George P. Platt, respondent, in propria per.

HIGGINS Justice.

The relators, Sidney DeArmas and Edgar H. Powell, are before this Court, asking that it invoke its supervisory jurisdiction by granting writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the respondent District Judge, who they claim has arbitrarily removed them as grand jurors, without legal cause.

Relators allege that on September 5, 1939, they were duly sworn and qualified by Honorable George P. Platt, Judge of Section ‘ B’, of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, as members of the Orleans Parish Grand Jury; that they regularly attended the meetings and took part in the deliberations of the Grand Jury until October 6, 1939, when ‘ certain matters came to the attention of petitioners, which matters led petitioners and at least five other members of the said Grand July to question the motives and propriety of the conduct of the District Attorney of Orleans Parish, one Charles A. Byrne, and led petitioners and at least five other members of said Grand Jury to believe that they could not properly perform their duties as grand jurors pursuant to law and their oath of office as long as said Byrne and his assistants continued to act as their sole legal advisors'; that ‘ on October 6, 1939, petitioners, together with the remaining ten members of the Grand Jury, were called into private consultation by Honorable George P. Platt, and, with the admonition of secrecy under their oath, were given certain instructions as to the mode of their procedure, the conduct of their hearings, and the scope of their administrative powers, and the extent of the control of the District Attorney over the members of the Grand Jury and their proceedings'; that ‘ petitioners, realizing the solemnity of their oath and out of an abundance of caution, refrain from divulging what transpired at the aforesaid meeting,’ but, believing that the said information should be placed before this Court and that the pledge of secrecy does not here apply, they have given the Court the information; that petitioners believe that the instructions given to them on October 6, 1939, ‘ were wholly in excess of the said court's powers and rights, that said instructions were erroneous and that said instructions had the effect of unlawfully curtailing and bridling the investigatory powers of the Grand Jury, which said grand jurors are charged to exercise, all of which intimidated and confused petitioners and shattered their faith in the efficacy of the court's instructions'; that ‘ on October 9, 1939, petitioners, while endeavoring to carry out their duties as grand jurors, attempted, in open court, to read a request for assistance signed by a majority of the members of the Grand Jury and addressed to the aforesaid court, asking that the said court recuse the District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans, one Charles A. Byrne, and said Byrne's entire legal staff as the sole advisors to the aforesaid Grand Jury, and order said Byrne and his staff to recuse themselves as sole legal advisors to the aforesaid Grand Jury, a copy of which said request being attached hereto and made a part hereof’ ; that because of what transpired on October 6, 1939, as above set forth, and ‘ in view of the importance of the document to be presented,’ petitioner Powell was authorized by a majority of the members of the Grand Jury to proceed according to the statutory mandate set forth in Article 196 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads: ‘ * * * and such Grand Jury shall make all of its findings and returns in open court to said judge; * * *.’ That Powell was instructed by the signers of the document to read it in open court, rather than in chambers, the majority of the grand jurors ‘ fearing a repetition of the order of secrecy attendant to the previous private consultation with said judge; ’ that, ‘ as the representative of a majority of the members of the Grand Jury, petitioner Powell requested said court for permission to read the document, and Judge Platt refused said request and ordered that the document be submitted to him in private; ’ that Powell, believing he was performing his duties as a grand juror under Article 196 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, began reading the document in open court, whereupon Judge Platt ordered his arrest; that when Powell was seized by the order of Judge Platt, he passed the document to petitioner DeArmas, who was likewise ordered arrested by the Judge, despite the fact that petitioner DeArmas at no time read any part of said document aloud in open court; that ‘ one hour later Judge Platt, in open court, held petitioners to have been in contempt of court and announced their sentence to be the one hour that they had previously been detained’ ; that ‘ immediately thereafter, said Judge Platt orally attempted to discharge petitioners from their duties as grand jurors, giving as his oral reasons a statement substantially to the effect that said Judge Platt did not believe petitioners capable of performing their duties as grand jurors properly’ ; that the said Judge did not advise petitioners, or any other members of the Grand Jury, or in any way indicate that the document might be publicly read in open court and conveyed the impression to petitioners that he had denied them the right to publicize the document, especially in view of the events of October 6, 1939, referred to above; that on October 10, 1939, petitioners presented a motion, praying that the court rescind and set aside the order of discharge rendered by Judge Platt, which motion was denied for the reasons assigned in a written opinion by the District Judge, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of the application; that petitioners are informed that Judge Platt intends to have two new members appointed to the Orleans Parish Grand Jury to replace them; that petitioners believed that the only proper course open to them in the conscientious performance of their duties in the interest of the public, pursuant to their oath of office, was to present the document, and they were not motivated by any disrespect for the orderly enforcement of the law or by any attack on the dignity of the court; that ‘ petitioners further aver and contend that under the facts before this Court, said Honorable George P. Platt had no power, authority or right to discharge petitioners as grand jurors and said order of discharge should be annulled, revoked, rescinded and set aside as null, void and of no effect’ ; and that petitioners further allege and contend, in the alternative, that if Judge Platt had the power to exercise such discretion in discharging them, he arbitrarily and without sufficient cause abused his discretion and that, therefore, his order should be annulled, revoked, rescinded and set aside as erroneous.

The controversial document reads, as follows:

‘ Request to the Honorable Judge Platt for Assistance.

‘ Whereas we, the undersigned members of the Grand Jury for the Parish of Orleans, have solemnly sworn to the oath of our office as prescribed by law that we ‘ will diligently inquire and true presentment make of such matters and things as shall be given to the Grand Jurors in charge, or otherwise come to (their) knowledge,’ and have moreover been charged and instructed by this Honorable Court and are obliged by law to ‘ inquire into all crimes punishable with capital punishment and into all other crimes triable within the Parish,’ and.

‘ Whereas we, the undersigned members of the Grand Jury for the Parish of Orleans, are deeply sensible of our duties as members of the Grand Jury, and are sincere in our desire to discharge our obligations as Grand Jurors to the law, to the community, and to this Honorable Court, as well as to the democratic system of which it is a basic part, and

‘ Whereas, there has come to our knowledge as Grand Jurors numerous instances of scandalous frauds and violations of the laws of the State of Louisiana which this Grand Jury is obliged under law and according to our oath diligently to inquire into, But:

‘ Whereas, the District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans and his staff of Assistant District Attorneys, are constituted the legal advisors of the Grand Jury, nevertheless the said District Attorney and his staff have failed and refused to cooperate with your Grand Jury to the extent necessary to aid and advise it in its inquiry into the numerous and scandalous and often intricate violations of the criminal laws in this City and Parish. He has permitted witnesses whose presence was required before the Grand Jury and who were available for questioning to leave the jurisdiction of the Court without serving them with summons to appear; He has refused to summons a witness whose presence was ordered before the Grand Jury upon the ground that the witness was mentally unstable, thus usurping the function of the Grand Jury to determine the credibility of witnesses before it; he has delayed, stalled, and refused to produce and to order the production of books, records, papers, documents and pay rolls on the ground of inconvenience, or that the task is burdensome or tedious, and when the insistence of the Grand Jury for such documents and records finally required the ...