State v. Brazile
| Decision Date | 05 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 42936,42936 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Jasper BRAZILE. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Fred S. LeBlanc, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ben F. Thompson, Dist. Atty., A. M. D'Angelo, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Alexandria, for appellant.
Ben F. Holt, LeDoux R. Provosty, Jr., Jules L. Davidson, Jr., Alexandria, for appellee.
Prior to the third trial of defendant for murder, 1 his counsel filed a motion to recuse the district attorney and his assistants for the reason that the second assistant district attorney, Edwin O. Ware, had served as one of the defense counsel at the first trial, this occurring before Mr. Ware's appointment as an assistant district attorney. In advance of the hearing, Mr. Ware filed a motion that he be recused in view of his previous participation in the first trial. The court granted this motion and ordered that Mr. Ware be recused.
Despite the recusation of Mr. Ware, defendant insisted that the district attorney and his other assistant be recused, the theory being that, since Mr. Ware is doubtless in possession of vital information concerning the case, there is a possibility that he might have divulged material matters to the district attorney and his staff to the great prejudice of the defense.
The trial judge acceded to this view, being of the opinion that, due to Mr. Ware's previous relation with defendant and his present position in the district attorney's office, it would be prejudicial to defendant's rights to allow the district attorney and his other assistant to continue to prosecute the case as there is a possibility that Mr. Ware might have divulged to the district attorney some of the highly privileged information given him. Accordingly, he sustained the motion to recuse and the State has prosecuted this appeal from the adverse ruling. 2
We think that the judge was in error. The causes for recusation of a district attorney, which are set forth in Article 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, R.S. 15:310, cover three separate categories. The only one which could possibly have any bearing on this case is the second cause which provides for the recusation of the district attorney if he '* * * shall have been employed or consulted as attorney for the accused before his election or appointment as district attorney; * * *.' Neither the district attorney nor his first assistant has ever been employed or consulted as attorney for defendant at any time and the fact that Mr. Ware, who has recused himself, is presently employed as the second assistant district attorney affords no ground at all for the recusation of either the district attorney or his first assistant, as they can only be recused for one of the grounds prescribed by law. See State v. Boasberg, 124 La. 289, 50 So. 162.
Nor is there basis for recusation in the charge that there is a possibility that Mr. Ware has violated the confidential relationship existing between attorney and client. Indeed, it is to be presumed that he, as a member of the bar in good standing, has and will respect the defendant's confidence.
In support of the motion to recuse, defense counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chadwick v. Superior Court
...Hayashi (1976) 57 Hawaii 289, 554 P.2d 1131, 1135-1136; Mattress v. State (1977) Tenn.Cr.App., 564 S.W.2d 678, 680; State v. Brazile, supra, 231 La. 90, 90 So.2d 789 (1973); State v. Brown, (La.) 274 So.2d 381, 383; State v. Bell (La.1977) 346 So.2d 1090, 1099-1100; Surrette v. State (Fla.A......
-
State v. Cline
...the disqualification of an entire prosecutorial office because of prior association of one member with a defendant. In State v. Brazile, 231 La. 90, 90 So.2d 789 (1956), the Supreme Court of Louisiana overturned a trial court order to recuse the district attorney and his assistants for the ......
-
State v. Gay
...a former client any confidential knowledge gained through their former association, the accused suffers no prejudice. State v. Brazile, 231 La. 90, 90 So.2d 789 (1956); State v. Johnston, 546 So.2d 1231 (La.App. 1 Cir.1989); State v. Daughtery, 563 So.2d 1171 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990), writ deni......
-
State v. Divers
...a former client any confidential knowledge gained through their former association, the accused suffers no prejudice. State v. Brazile, 231 La. 90, 90 So.2d 789 (1956); State v. Crandell, supra. The courts have consistently refused to recuse the district attorney and the rest of his staff w......