State v. Garrison

• Citation: 244 La. 787,154 So.2d 400
• Decision Date: 04 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 46686,46686
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Jim GARRISON.
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

Page 400

154 So.2d 400

244 La. 787

STATE of Louisiana v. Jim GARRISON.

No. 46686.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 4, 1963.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1963.

Donald V. Organ, Louis P. Trent, New Orleans, for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., John E. Jackson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Link, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HAMLIN, Justice.

The defendant, Jim Garrison, appeals from his conviction of the offense of Defamation ¹ (LSA-R.S. 14:47) and his sentence to pay a fine of $1,000.00 or, in default of payment of said fine, to serve four months in the Parish Prison.

The Bill of Information charging the defendant with the offense of defamation recites:

'Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, who in the name and by the authority of the said State, prosecutes, in this behalf, in proper person comes into the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, in the Parish of Orleans, and gives the said Court here to understand and be informed that one Jim Garrison late of the Parish of Orleans, on the 2nd day of November in the year of Our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-two with force and arms in the Parish of Orleans aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, did wilfully, unlawfully and maliciously defame each, George B. Platt, Judge of Section 'B', Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans and the presiding judge thereof, and one Malcolm V. O'Hara, Judge of Section 'A' of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, one Edward A. Haggerty, Jr., Judge of Section 'C', Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, one Thomas M. Brahney, Jr., Judge of Section 'D' of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, one J. Bernard Cocke, Judge of Section 'E', Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, one Oliver P. Schulingkamp, Judge of Section 'F', Criminal District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, one Shirley G. Wimberly, Judge of Section 'G', Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, and Bernard J. Bagert, Judge of Section 'H', Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, which said judges constitute all the entire bench of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, and did publish and express in the public press of the City of New Orleans to persons other than the parties defamed which said publication and expressions are recited herein below of certain things which tend to expose to hatred, contempt and ridicule and deprive such persons of their benefit of public confidence and social intercourse. The said publication and expressions being contained in the following news item reproduced from the New Orleans States-Item, (an afternoon daily newspaper published in the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, published on November 2nd, 1962 which reads as follows, to-wit:

"TEXT OF GARRISON STAND ON JUDGES

"The statement by District Attorney Jim Garrison on his feud with the criminal district court judges follows:

"Apparently the judges have called in all their reserves.

"(A reference to the joint meeting of all criminal court judges today.)

"Whatever their resulting statement turns out to be, I doubt if the statement. ,.:

facts will be much more accurate than those in Judge (William J.) O'Hara's statement.

"I will cite some glowing examples of misrepresentation of facts.

"First of all is the attempt made to counterattack by imputing to this office the responsibility for the overcrowded conditions of the Parish Prison.

"Judge O'Hara makes the fantastic implication that somehow the system of operation of my office has created this condition. The short reply to this untruth is that the Parish Prison was vastly overcrowded the day we were sworn in.

"There was not only a backlog of untried cases then * * * there has been for years.

"For example, the judge admits in his own statement that the (Leon D.) Hubert office inherited a backlog of 3500 cases. When we came into office in May, the backlog had risen to approximately 4600 cases.

"Inasmuch as the judges have been the only continuing caretakers of the criminal courts operations over the years, it is pretty obvious where the real responsibility lies for the revised backlog of untried cases.

"District attorneys come and go every four years but the judges and the backlog always seems to be here.

"Furthermore, I am sure that Judge O'Hara knows that no district attorney's office in years has pushed more cases to trial than we have in our first six months of office.

"We have prosecuted approximately 40 jury trials already--despite the fact that the winter term of the courts has just begun.

"An objective study by an outside agency will reveal that this is at least as many trials as were held the last two years prior to our arrival.

"To go on to another misrepresentation, Judge O'Hara has made the incredible statement that we have pulled our investigators away from the courts. The truth is that our investigators are with the trial assistant, invariably within arm's reach of the assistant, in full sight of the judge in every courtroom throughout every trial.

"Obviously this is nothing more than a petulant slap at our use of investigators to uncover vice conditions in the city--an operation with which the judges have shown a remarkable lack of sympathy.

"As a matter of fact, so opposed have the judges been to our vice investigations that they completely blocked us off from our Bourbon Street investigations of B-drinking and other forms of vice.

"This was accomplished by the judges tying the purse strings of the district attorney's fines and fees and informing me that no further money could be used in the investigation of any vice conditions.

"The judges have specifically directed that the district attorney's office 'should not investigate anything' and informed me that they would allow me to use no further money from my large fines and fees--presently $40,000--for any form of vice investigation.

"In certain areas where we have spent borrowed money to keep operating against vice--in major handbook operations as well as in B-drinking cases--the judges have instructed me that this money will not be replaced out of fines and fees. I must pay this out of my own pocket.

"Again the message from the judges is clear. They do not want the district attorney's office to investigate anything.

"Interestingly enough, had I let them stop me in August as they attempted to do, I would not have been able to keep the pressure on the Canal Street B-joints, which ultimately resulted in the closing of all of them.

"I succeeded in keeping up the pressure on these places, despite the judges' tying of the purse strings, by my personal loan from the Bank of New Orleans.

"The judges have now made it eloquently clear where their sympathies lie in regard to aggressive vice investigations by refusing to authorize use of the DA's funds to pay for the cost of closing down the Canal Street clip joints * * * closed them, despite their (the judges') obvious attempts to block me, they now seek to slap the DA on the wrist by making him pay for this successful operation out of his pocket.

"Again the message is clear: 'Don't rock the boat, son. You are not supposed to investigate anything.'

"This raises interesting questions about the racketeer influences on our eight vaction-minded judges. This is a matter regarding which I will have (much ²) more to say a little later.

"To go on to another misrepresentation of Judge O'Hara's statement, I am sure that he well knows that we did not throw out the trial preparation system of Mr. Hubert.

"That was junked four years ago by the preceding DA's office and there was no comment by Judge O'Hara about its disappearance throughout the four years.

"As a matter of fact, this office gives special attention to the preparation of trial and has adopted a number of the excellent trial preparations of the Hubert era.

"To give a specific example, our office now is in the process of printing for distribution to every criminal defense attorney and every court the trial docket for the month to come.

"Our setting of particular cases on particular dates is so arrived at to avoid such conflicts as having cases in different courts by defendants or an attorney on the same day.

"Interestingly enough, this program was abandoned by the previous DA' administration, and again there was not a word from Judge O'Hara.

"O'Hara has now developed--subsequent to his retirement--a concern for the efficient operation of the trial dockets.

"Actually, the time for Judge O'Hara to be active in his concern for the district attorney's office was during the preceding four years when there was a complete breakdown of vice prosecution and prosecution of cases in every area.

"So complete was this breakdown that in the last several years there were almost no trials of any kind for commercialized vice. The judge at no time expressed any concern for this breakdown of the prosecution office.

"The first discernible interest on their part with regard to the district attorney's handling of vice cases arrived the past summer when it became apparent that this office was achieving success in its effort to eliminate the B-drinking racket in New Orleans.

"This is when, to my astonishment, I suddenly received instructions--through Judge O'Hara himself, speaking for the rest of the judges--that I could no longer spend any money out of fines and fees for anything.

"Since this was in August--there was not to be an en banc meeting until October when all the judges returned from their vacations--this would have had the effect of blocking our vice investigations. This is when I borrowed money from the bank and continued to investigate B-drinking in spite of the judges.

"If the judges would show half as much interest in solving dangerous overcrowded conditions of the Parish Prison, and this overcrowding...