UPDATE: gannett/the town talk sunday 26 september 2010
gannett/the town talk is reporting this morning that yesterday, ninth judicial district court judge, thomas yeager sentenced a deville man to thirty-four years in prison "for two counts of vehicular homicide in a wreck a year ago on the cottingham expressway in pineville."reportedly, jeffrey deville, of deville, louisiana, was driving on the expressway when his truck crossed the median and struck a car killing lsua professor, barbara frye and her companion louis tyner, both of pollock, la,.instantly.mr. deville might have been intoxicated at the time of the wreck because it was reported "tests showed" that he had "drugs in his system at the time of the crash."so whats the big deal -- 34 years ... that sounds about right eh?well contrast this sentence -- to the one handed down just a couple of months ago, also by judge yeager, in the mysterious case of justin paul brouillette.mr. brouillette, like mr. deville, was also suspected of barreling down the highway under the influence when he ran over and killed three people -- a mother and her two daughters who were walking somewhere on the shoulder of the road. its believed that they too were killed instantly.at the time, it was said that this wreck was one of the most gruesome; heinous accident/crime scenes in recent memory.mr. brouillette from judge yeager, "received a 15-year sentence -- which could be completed within 3-and-a-half years."in a 23 may 2010 [original source link] [seven page .pdf 70 kb] column, the gannett editorialist, cynthia jardon, revealed that mr. brouillette comes from a prominent family apparently "with enough cash;" including a mysterious unnamed retired judge and also a suspicious connection between the rapides parish district attorney's office and mr. brouillette's defense attorney.previously, on 11 may 2010, the gannett repeater, abby brown doyle, (this might be important: judge yeager officiated her 27 march 2010 marriage ceremony.[original source link] [two page .pdf 86 kb] gannett/the town talk, 09 may 2010), reported how at sentencing mr. brouillette remained silent. this means that he was not required as part of his plea bargain to allocute to his crime.everyone whose ever watched "law & order" much must be familiar with that term. despite the fact that "law & order" is a fictional, tee-vee program, supposedly set in the city of new york, allocution is a real word and a real operation of law:Allocute generally means to formally declare something...In the legal context, it refers to stating specifically and in detail one's actions and motices, [sic] often in relation to commission of a crime.
In most United States jurisdictions a criminal defendant is allowed the opportunity before sentencing to offer an explanation for the crime through allocution.
Some jurisdictions provide that this is an absolute right for all defendants, without which, a sentence may be overturned, and a new sentencing hearing must be held.
Allocution is sometimes required of a defendant who pleads guilty to a crime in a plea bargain in exchange for a reduced sentence.
In such cases, allocution is intended to provide closure for victims or their families by removing any doubt as to the exact nature of the defendant's guilt in the crime. ~ source
louisiana style allocution, the loony looziana supreme court teaches us, for example in the unpublished appendix to opinion in state of louisiana v ricky joseph langley, (a capital case) pages 41 - 42, that the right of allocution is a defendants right at the sentencing hearing.
the supremes quoting our own third circuit appeals court wrote:“right of allocution has normally been reserved to a defendant addressing the sentencing judge.”
in louisiana there is nothing to stop the district attorney from asking for or requiring a criminal to allocute to his or her crime and give account of himself. especially... especially, in exchange for when a criminal receives such a plum plea bargain as it appears happened in mr. brouillette's case.
when you read between-the-lines of ms. jardon's piece, doesnt it seem possible that one reason judge yeager, the rapides parish district attorney's office, the mysterious unnamed retired judge and the defense attorney kept out the allocution was to protect the brouillette family's assets?
after all, if the victims family filed a civil suit against mr. brouillette, isnt it likely that his allocution in hand would strengthen their case?
it appears that ms. jardon's questions about the deville case were answered. it doesnt look like mr. deville had a prominent attorney or judge in his family to call in favors for him, or a lot of cash, or a defense attorney playing slap-n-tickle with the folks in the district attorney's office.
it's not mentioned whether or not mr. deville allocuted.
if louisiana had an honest, respectable legislature -- instead of freaks, perverts and criminals themselves, they would immediately move to convene the house judiciary committee in joint session with the senate committees on the judiciary and investigate both of these cases and get to the bottom of what is wrong with our lousy louisiana judicial system and fix it.
====
a gannett/the town talk commenter on the jeffrey deville story
everyday more and more people become aware of all the fraud and corruption that's going on all around and right out in the open; it's only a matter of time before there are so many millions of angry people that the police and military is forced to get involved and start investigating.
EXTERNAL LINK
9th judicial district court judge thomas yeager
a gannett/the town talk commenter on the jeffrey deville story
