Stewart v. Dameron, Civ. A. No. 70-131.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 70-131.
• Parties: Frank STEWART v. Charles H. DAMERON, District Attorney ad hoc, East Baton Rouge Parish, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

345 F. Supp. 1086

Frank STEWART v. Charles H. DAMERON, District Attorney ad hoc, East Baton Rouge Parish, et al.

Civ. A. No. 70-131.

United States District Court, M. D. Louisiana.

July 28, 1972.

Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Emile C. Rolfs, III, Baton Rouge, La., for Charles H. Dameron.

Cheney C. Joseph, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for Sargent Pitcher, Jr.

Carlos G. Spaht, Baton Rouge, La., for Sargent Pitcher, Jr. and Judge John S. Covington.

Joseph F. Keogh, Baton Rouge, La., for Captain Leroy Watson and Sargent Pitcher, Jr.

E. GORDON WEST, District Judge:

Plaintiff, Frank Stewart, is under indictment in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, charged with conspiracy to commit murder in violation of L. S.A.-R.S. 14:26-30. He applied to this Court in June of 1970 for an injunction prohibiting the State of Louisiana from prosecuting him, alleging that the proposed prosecution was not being conducted in good faith, but was instead politically and/or racially motivated. A hearing was held before this Court on November 9, 1970, and after hearing extensive testimony, for written reasons filed in the record hereof, injunctive relief was denied, 321 F.Supp. 886. Some eleven months thereafter, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, 448 F.2d 396, on the very technical ground that this Court should have made the plaintiff carry the burden of proving political or racial motivation instead of making the defendant carry the burden of proving lack of such motivation, even though the procedure followed by this Court was more favorable to the plaintiff, and certainly more onerous on the defendant. So, on remand, this Court, on November 1, 1971, held another full scale evidentiary hearing, requiring the plaintiff to carry the burden of proving his allegations. After both hearings this Court had before it, for an in camera inspection, a complete stenographic transcript of certain tape recordings that had been presented to and heard by the Grand Jury which indicted Stewart. This transcript, furnished the Court at the Court's request, by the District Attorney for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and certified by him to be a true transcript of the tapes, was carefully studied by this Court in camera. After the second hearing, and after carefully studying the transcript of the tapes involved, for written reasons again filed in this record, this Court again denied the plaintiff's requested injunctive relief. After two hearings...