Case ID: so3d_151/html/0075-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. HUGHES, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Christopher S. BOWMAN.
    No. 2014-B-1771.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 31, 2014.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

IxThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeks review of a recommendation of the disciplinary board that the formal charges against respondent, Christopher S- Bowman, be dismissed. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we find the disciplinary board reached the correct result in dismissing the formal charges.

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that the formal charges against respondent be dismissed.

JOHNSON, C.J. dissents.

HUGHES, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

HUGHES, J.,

would grant the writ.

| iWhile I respect the right of respondent to criticize any judge at any time, I wish to avoid a misconception about the nature of our criminal justice system. When a judge or a jury finds a criminal defendant “not guilty,” the verdict cannot properly be said to “thwart” the efforts of the prosecution.

The U.S. Supreme Court instructed in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), that prosecutors represent a sovereign “whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”