27 April 2007

former jena police chief george king wins at state supremes

it really sucks when a bunch of red necks in a small louisiana town and parish have a falling out...click link to read 22 page .pdf.

The Opinion handed down on the 27th day of April, 2007, is as follows:

(Parish of Lasalle) (Malfeasance in Office)
For all of the above reasons, we find defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the district attorney should be recused pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 680(1). Consequently, we find the trial court erred in denying the motion to recuse the district attorney. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeal’s order granting defendant’s motion to recuse the district attorney and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

VICTORY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
TRAYLOR, J., dissents.
KNOLL, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Victory, J.
WEIMER, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
chief king lost a runoff election on 07 november 2006
On October 21, 2003, a LaSalle Parish Grand Jury returned a true bill of indictment charging defendant, George King, the Chief of Police for the town of Jena, Louisiana, with malfeasance in office in violation of La. R.S. 14:134(1).1 The charges stem from an incident that occurred on October 6, 2003, in which James Robbins, the Mayor of Jena, struck Gary Compton, a member of the Town Council of Jena, twice in the face with a closed fist after a heated verbal exchange. When the incident occurred, the mayor was accompanied by defendant, who allegedly witnessed and participated in the event, yet failed to take any action to prevent its escalation into a simple battery, and failed to make an arrest pursuant to an investigation.
defendant alleged the district attorney believed that defendant had either started or spread salacious rumors concerning the personal lives of the district attorney and a member of his family. Defendant further alleged the district attorney’s belief that he had started or spread the rumors had driven the district attorney to proceed with his prosecution instead of perhaps dismissing it as was earlier discussed by defendant’s attorney and the district attorney.
In the instant case, the district attorney candidly and admirably admitted his belief that defendant was responsible for spreading or starting offensive rumors about him and a family member was a factor in his decision to proceed with the prosecution against defendant. Because of this, we find his personal interest in the cause would lead a reasonable person to question whether he could conduct defendant’s trial fairly and impartially.