1797

“PD-3028 (Rev. 11-15-53)

TTA“HQ- Fe

2

Ceatinastion of FD-302 of _JUDGE THOMAS PORTEOUS .0n__ 8/18/94 pase

he was paid a sum of $10,000, or for that matter, any sum in
exchange for an agreement to reduce the bond for Gq}

With regards to an allegation that PORTEOUS had

received $1,500 to reduce a bond in a matter involving a Ge
, who had been arrested for theft, PORTEOUS, alrea

aay
hav ‘avare of this allegation from previous discussion
with: (as referenced shove) « Pies the criminal fi.
avail: for review. PORTEOUS pointed out that@Q— bond
had originally been set at $300,000, be sed on a mere two counts
of theft. The bond was initially set by Judge JOHN MOLAISON.
Upon review of the matter, PORTEOUS agreed to reduce the bond to
@ $50,000 property bond. Hé recalls ADAM BARNETT being the
bondsman in this matter, a trusted bondsman who he had known for
along time, PORTEOUS stated that he felt, based upon the
fefferson Parish jails being extremely overcrowded at that time
(last year), the fact that the details of the arré aid not
Appear to warrant such a Nigh bond, along with limited criminal
history of the defendant, this situation warranted a reduction in
bond. “PORTEOUS pointed out that the bond was reduced to a
$50,000 property bond, Although it was later shown that the
surety was insufficient for the amount of the bond, the defendant.
appeared in court for every hearing, and was ultimately given
credit for time served in jail, and placed on probation. He
recalled the i newspaper as making an
Assue of this ical error in allowing a property bond to be
set when there was insufficient surety. PORTEOUS stated that
although there was a technical error here, it proved to be a
harmless error, in light of the fact that the defendant never
failed to appear for any of her court hearings. However,

PORTEOUS again categorically denied that he had been given $1,500
or any amount of money to reduce the bond or

Judge PORTEOUS also denied that he had ever owned a
yacht either individua2ly or jointly with others, and
furthermore, denied that he had ever owned any type of boat. He
also denied that he had ever been present when cocaine,
marijuana, or any other illegal narcotic vas being utilized. He
also denied that he had ever used any illegal narcotic
personally.

Lastly, Judge PORTEOUS denied that he had ever signed
any bail bonds "in blank:" and stated that he was unavare of
anything in his background that might be the basis of attempted

6

PORTO00000493


1627

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Standing Committee on
Federal Judiciary
100 M Street, NW
Wiashington, OC 2906
om Bear

‘CONFIDENTIAL + August 30, 1994

Hon, Eleanor Dean Acheson
assistant Attorney General

United states Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
Room 5131

Washington, D.C. 20530

RE: HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
United States District Court
re

Dear Eldie:

As a result of our investigation our Committee is
unanimously of the opinion that Honorable G. Thomas
Porteous, Jr. is Qualified for appointment as Judge of
the United States District Court, Eastern Districtof

Louisiana
Sincerely,

William E. Willis
chair

co: All Committee Members

PORTOO0000062


1826

533 SUSPENDED SENTENCE—PROBATION

D. The authority vested in courts by this Article is
in addition to any authority granted by other laws with
feipect to perons comic of mafic vielatons 2nd

ldren decreed to be traffic violators,

E. All court-approved driver iy at courses
under this this Amis thal locude ‘nsttveion 00 railroad
and highway grade crossing safery.

F.to LL Repealed by Acts 1991, No. 485, § 2; Acts
1993, No. 225, § 2, eff. July 1, 1993. Added by Acs
1972, No, 224, § 1. Amended by Acts 1985, No. 150,
$ 1; Aes 1990, Nabi; § 1; Act 1991, No. #85, $5 1,
2 ets 1993, No. 225, § 2 off. July 1, 1993.

TRS. 3a etieg.

Art, 8922. Notice of controlled dangerous substance
conviction; licensing authority
Whetpetson-t-tonvicted: of violating “any felony
provision of the Uniform Conwoed Dangerous Sub-

sentence shall deter-
maine Ifthe defendant 2 license to practice &

occupation, or profesion ia this sae and, i to)

trade,

the courtshall cause. notica of the. conviction to
forwarded to the appropriate licensing authority. Add-
ed by Acts 1989, No. 81, § 1.

Art $923, Transfer of forelgn nationals or citizens;
treaty

‘When a treaty is in effect between the United States
ding for the trancfer of a

88582 a

C.Cr.P. Art. 893

‘ding or changing concons of probation,
‘Termination of probation or suspended sentences dis:
hasge of defendant.

satsition-of wepeaded stomnce and. probation
‘Arrest or sumone for vlaoa of probaion.
‘Violadon hesting; sanctons.
tion for eorumission of another offense,
IL. Additional sanctions for probation revocation,
902, Drug addice, pre-sentence investigation; voluntary
treaanent conditions of probation.
Preliminary. Statement .
Akhough supension of sentence has bee possible
fa Louisiana since 1914 and was incorporated jot
the 1928 Code of Criminal Prosedu the ist com
sytem of suspended sentence and probe-
too was ciared by At af and of tbe 1942
‘Thone lana were revised in 1960, by the Parolee

ommitce was propated afier a
the ‘section, Sec. 301, Dried

Siaddard Probedon and Parole Act prepared by the
National Probation Assocation, the 1942
Louisiana starues (former RS. 15530 to 538), and

Cat
ei, Michigan, New Jertey, New Yoo.
syivania, and Wisconsin. The 1960 Louisiana stat-
‘ue, which had been careful considered by «song

lof fudge and pron
Tota of ti Chaper Sher oe ue poy

a of national of the
foreign country to the foreign country or the transfer
of a citizen of the United Scares convicted as an
‘offender in the foreign country to the United States,
the governor is authorized, subject to the termas of such
‘treaty, to act on bebalf of the state and to consent to
the transfer of such convicted offenders under the
provisions af Article TV, Section 5(A) of the Constimi-
tion of Louisiana. Added by Acs 1990, No. 514, § 1,
eff. July 18, 1990.

CHAPTER. 2__ SUSPENDED, SENTENCE

=
defendant, the offense occurred at least Gve years

‘were so recently and
Mowe ths Cape geoeray adheres 10 the 1960
migin mates mes baseey ot
in an effort to improve iss phraseology an
+ organization, if possible,

Art. 893. Suspension of sentence and probation in
felony cases

‘A. When it appears that the best interest of the
public and of the defendant will be served, the court
after a Gist or second conviction of a noncapital felony,
may suspend, ia whole or in part, the imposition ot
Cescodon of euer or both sentenbes where suspen
sion is allowed under the law. and in either or Doth

cases~pinee ~the—defendans~on_poobetion— ~
‘supervision of the “amviiGd ef probation and parole.
‘Tue court shall noc suspend the sentence of @ second
‘conviction unless the court finds that such offense did
after
satisfaction of the sentence imposed for the first con-
viction, and the t-was not charged with any

‘other felony since the date of first conviction. The
period of probation shall be specified and shall nos be
Jess than one year nor: more than five years.

ante senor shal be rguned sv eateace or
the purpose of granting or denying a new cial ot
appeal.

'B, The court under the same conditions and by the
same procedure as provided for above may suspend the

PORTO00000675


128: .
2erm JUDICIAL DISTRIL? OURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISLANA
WO. 286-153 Divistow "an

DAVID EGUDIN

vs.
‘CARRIAGE COURT CONDOWINIUMS, ET AL
FILED, . » 1987 DEEUTY CLEBK:,

S
Supcwents,,

ach day of Fett

‘This maccer came to the court for hearing

thay

1987.
PRESENT: -LEONARD LEVENSON, Attorney for Plainciff
“JOSEPR D'AQUIN
“EDWARD T. SUFFERN, JR.
JOuN SEAGO

“CRRISTOPHER LAWLER
CONRAD MEYER, IV, Attorneys for Defendancs

The Court, after hearing the pleadings, che evidence and the arguments

and menoranda of Lay furnished by counsel, considering che law co be in favor

fendants, for the written

of the plainciff, David Egudin, and againsc the
reasons that will be subsequently rendered.

IT IS ORDERED, ADIVDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in fevor of
plaincif£, David Egudin, and against defendants, Carriage Court Condominiums,
Belxvil Group, Inc., and Plerre Villere, finding fraud and unfair trade
practices.

TT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AID DECREED that chere be jodgaeat in favor of
David Bgudia and against Vilnack Brokers, Inc., Sun Zchentaer end Bobbie

Wenderson finding that the said defendants breached their fiduciary duties

as real estate agents as a result of their acts and omissions during the

“course of events that led to plaintiff's lose and that said defendants coumitted

various acts violative of LSA-R.S. 3721455.

Tr IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUUGED AND DECREED that defendants, Carria

Court Condosinians and Pierre Villere convey to petitiouer, David Bgudin, om or
before July £8, 1987, the property described as condominium unit 202 of the
Carriage Cour Coadouiniuas together with the undivided omership interest tn
the common elements of paid condominium located ac 2500 Houms Boulevard im the
Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in defaule of che passage

of said act of sale by defendant there be judgment in favor of David Egudin and

= PORTO0O000126...,


2.

1593

Describe the typical former clients, and mention the areas, if
any, in which you have specialized.

My clients were all individuals until approximately 1975. Subsequently, my
practice consisted of corporate representation in ateas such as: maritime
defense for barge fleeting operations, NLRB appearances, and general
corporate representation. Additionally, from 1979 until 1984, I dealt with
corporations that developed and operated tank terminal facilities.

As City Attorney, I handled all matters involving the City of Harahan &
also prosecuted municipal violations, in the Mayor’s Court

c.

1, Did you appear in court frequently, occasionally, or not
at all? If the frequency of your appearances in court
varied, describe each such variance, giving dates.

Frequently.
2. What percentage of these appearances was in:
(a) _ federal courts - 20%
(b) state courts of record = - 80%
(c) other courts - 0%
3. What percentage of your litigation was;
(@) civil = 50%
(b) criminal. = - 50%
4, State the number of cases in court of record you tried to verdict

or judgment (rather than settled), indicating whether you were
sole counsel, chief counsel, or associate counsel.

350 plus cases - Sole Counsel, 80%; Chief Counsel, 15%; Associate

Counsel, 5%.
5. | What percentage of these trials were: .
(@) jury 40%
(b)  non-jury 60%
B

PORTOOGG00028


1722

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 382-915 DIVISION "A

THUAN NGOC DO
VERSUS

PHUONG HOANG NGO AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY

FILED:.

OEPUTY CLERK

JUDGMENT
This matter came for hearing on the 11th day of October, 1991 and the
9th and 10th of March, 1992, and taken under advisement.
PRESENT:
Betty F. England
Robert E. Winn
Attorney for plaintiff, Thuan Ngnoc Do
Philip C. Ciaccio, Jr.
Attorney for defendants, Phoung Hoang Ngo and
Hien Thi Dinh
The Court, after hearing the pleadings; the evidence, and the arguments
and memoranda of law furnished by counsel, considering the law and evidence

to be in favor of the defendant for the written reasons attached hereto:

ITIS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be jiidgment
in favor of defendants, Phuong Hoang Ngo and Hein Thi Dinh, and against the
plaintiff, Thuan Ngoc Do, dismissing plaintiff's suit. All parties to bear their

respective costs.

JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED, and SIGNED win Pe

, 1992. Gretna, Louisiana.

UOGE

PORTOGO000157


1717

sescilicd chat she v9" mareied co defendant tron Pecumber, 1956, uactt

1984, 28 years. She cescified thar Dr. KiLliams was drunk a large porcion

of cha Cine when be.uas home. His iérmer wife cescified chat her husband's
peridciance, along vich his ability to function, was affeccad by his
alcohol sbuse. She cescified chat his condicion was deteriorating and
geting progressively verse.

Tha Courc believes chac Adele Williams vas very credible and cruthful.
She was reluctanc co be a uithess againse her former husband and was clearly
unhappy co have co cestify against her husband or to be 4 witness in this
Ucigation. The Coure fele her testimony was cruchful and wiehouc malice
or bias.

Accordingly, this Coure finds as a macter of fact chac Dr. Williams
‘abused alcohol ac the cime of che surgery in question and violated his duty

to disclose chis dace co his prospective surgical paciencs. By failing to

inform plaintiff of this problem, Dr. Williams failed co weet the guidelines

of Hondroulis, supra.

As to damages, che parties stipulaced to medical expenses iacurred by

Paul Hiding in cénjunceion wich tha medical condition which he suffered
afcer his surgery of December 17, 1984. The Court therefore finds che sum
of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND SIX AND 50/100 ($22,006.50) DOLLARS in wedical
expenses vas incurred as @ result of che actions of Dr. Williams.

The surgery occurred on December 17, 1984. Following the surgery,
plainciff suffered loss of bladder and bowel function. Mr. and Mrs.
Bidding had to be trained in catherization techniques. As a tesule of his
catherizacion, plaintiff suffered various urinary trace infections on
regular basis. Mr. Hiding lived vich a colostomy folloving his surgery
co his death. Rubinell Uidding and Russell Hiding tescified chac her
husband no Longer vent out in public due co the rancid snell emicced by
the colostomy bag and chat he had no comcrol over flatus, Thay ceseifted

char he no longer enjoyed che events of his daily life, such as working in

his garage, going fishing, or dining out.

Urs. Kidding cescified chit her husband had no penal sensation and
chat their sexual activity ceased. Urs, Hidding testified that she was
married to Paul Hiding for 44 years. She testified chat he vas alvays =
very active person prior co his surgery and chac chey participated in

guaerous activities cogether. Paul Hidding died on January 3, 1990. -

PORTOOOOOOTS2


1566

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR

em
ele d ‘SENSITIVE POSITIONS Straanees
FEM Chapter 722 {For National Security) ene

oy a sere

Yo ad ar pdf te rou use tr rane: your mate ne, nana «omer mare, Me eter nk

Se abu rane for maiden pane; pt nat tot ae
tame 5
None fie ees.

Fane a
Eee .
pate ea F oF
200 Brom Hazel

Sonn

US dem Ae US.

Se ee ee

Day

(504) 455-5870
a

mere US. Gita

“Epeowtmmi bode [Wyand Farmer

7 aaTED STATES GITZENSHIP Uyou wa «US. Cees, ba wer patton fu US proddeoradan abot ae aa off Mtowg proto your dzone
Feelin

ee Fe

tor ra

fifo

Ta eae Sas ened

a oA
wr

EES ET
{itrrerisies

"We maybe eae acento pore US, Pater.

a aa az
tittittet
aa

ORCS poe eco ae oO BT
are that couney a pace

fot 2 dual citizen ‘

@ MAR Trae aera nT

Fir You Ta
Enwedee
Vand Si: a

Seay oC

Regine
trite

inlin

PORTOGOO0O GRY, 1


26.

1687

or any related condition associated with consumption of alcoholic
beverages or any other form of drug addition or dependency? If so,
give details.

No.

g. Have you ever been treated for or suffered from any form of mental
illness? If so, give details.

No.

Furnish at least five examples of legal articles, books, briefs, or other legal
writings which reflect your personal work. If briefs are submitted, indicate
the degree to which they represent your personal work. If there are reported
opinions relevant to a submitted brief, give the citation to or a copy of any
relevant appellate opinion.

State v. Lane Nelson, This matter was before me on defendant’s application
for post conviction relief. Defendant was earlier found guilty, by a prior
court, of first degree murder and sentenced to death. I set aside the death
penalty because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant subsequently
plead guilty. to first degree and he was resentence to life imprison, without
capital punishment. (See attached judgement)

i is al., Civil Action # 247-364,
24th J.D.C. The brief represents my sole personal work. (See attached
brief)

Jefferson Bar Association CLE Courses
Seminar on Criminal Law & Procedure.(See attached seminar material)

Jefferson Bar Association CLE Courses
"1994 Seminar’ on Medical Malpractice. (See attached seminar iaterialy

- Civil Action# 205-643, 24th J.D.C., cited at
363 So. od 1263. The rie represents my sole personal work.(See attached)

26

PORTO00000122


1636

copier iuzu

LeU te wweaser ye vouneeusin
5 10 s4sei6tT Treaens

Fc 154A

PROFESSIONAL AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS:

1991 - 1882 President of the Fourth and Fifth Cirouit Judges Association

Current Board Mamber - Executive Boatd af the Fourth artd Fifth Circult Judges Association
Past Prasidant - Loufalana Dlatrict Attarnay’s Association (Assistant’s Section!

Federal Ber Association

American Bar Aszoclation

Lousiana State Bar Assaciation

Jefferson Bar Association

Former President St. Clamant of Rome Men's Club

AWARDS:
‘Morality in Media of Louisiane « January 21,1983
Brather Martin High Schaal, Outstanding Service - 1987
Univercity of Southwaatern Louisiana, mine! Justia
Program ~ 1980

PROFESSIONAL CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION:

Annual Distict Attorney's Confarence, Louisiana Oletict Attorney Association
‘Carear Prosecutor Course, National College of District Attorneys

Loulstana Evidence Seminars, Loulslana State University

Criminal Law Seminars, Louisiana State Urivercity

‘ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE:

‘United States Supreme Court

Louislans Supreme Court

Fedaral District Court, Eastern District of Loulstana
United States Court of Appeal, Sth Olrcult

ACTIVITIES AND HOBBIES:

Coach - football, baseball;
Hunting. fishing, golf

PERSONAL:

Bom: New Orleana, Louisiane; December 16, 1046
Married to the former Carmella Ann Giardina, father of four children: Michael, Timothy,
‘Thomas and Catherine,

basketball, Johnny Bright Playground

PeRTOOOO0071


1802

We informed the Judge that in our opinion his actions were
improper under La. C.-Cr. Pro. -Art.: 881. RE: Amendment of -
Sentence: We pointed out that the article limits the courts
@iscretion to amend sentences to instances prior to the beginning
of the execution of the sentence. Wallace’s sentence was amended
after completion of his jail term for a narcotics conviction and
while he was on supervised parole, ‘The Judge admitted that his
actions were contrary to Article 881 but defended his actions by
stating that the Assistant District Attorney who was present in

court should have objected to the amendment of Wallace’s sentence.

‘The Judge vehemently denied that he amended the sentence out
of friendship for or at the request of Louis Marcotte.

The Judge stated he felt he had done nothing criminal, but
stated that the Assistant District Attorney had the authority to
appeal his ruling if it was improper. The Judge ended the meeting
by telling us to ‘do what you think you have to do." We thanked
him for his time and we left his chamber: at approximately 4 p. m.

Page 4 of 4 CONFIDENTIAL
PORTO00000597


1720

‘24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
aon STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 354-591, DIVISIOw "
KAREW JEWELL, vife of /and DOWALD GLASS, ET AL
VERSUS
‘THE BERKSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL
» 1992 DEPUTY CLERK:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT,

On Novenber 5, 1991, a hearing vas conducted on various aotions and
exceptions filed by che defendants in the captioned acter. Having considered
che oval argumene of counsel, che memoranda, affidavics, and exhibits subaicced

id exceprions,

by all parties in support of and in opposition ce these motions
and che lav applicable co che case, the Court issues che following order:

‘The Motion for Summary Judgment of Ribernia Nacional Hank is granted.
The Coure finds that there {s no genuine issue as Co any material fact relating
ko che claims against Hibernia, and chac Hibernia is entitled to judgmenc as a
wateer of lav. Speciéically, Hibernia cannot on this record-be deemed co have
been a party co @ Joint venture or partnership concerning the developaene or
conversion of che forner ‘Berkshire Apartuents to condominiuas as alleged ia
the Petition, Mo inrant or agreement to form such 2 joint venture, nor to
share in profits and lossas other than as an ordinary lender would, nor to
exercise a proprietary interest in management of the enterprise on behalf of
Higbernia or any ocher party bas been shown, and no criable issue on aay of
Ghose points has been established by Plaintiffs. See Carlson v. Eving, 54 So.
2d G14, 417 (La, 1951); Glover v. Sowada, 457 So. 24 10, 104-05 (La, App. Sth

Cir, 1984); Terry v. Slidell Refrigerating & Heating, Inc., 271 So. 24 536,

340 (La. App. Ist Cir. 1972), The affidavic of tr. Buller and the other

submissions of Plaintiffs to Opposition to che Motion for Sumary Judgment are
tnsuffietent under Article 967 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure and
fail to raise a genvine issue of material fact precluding entry of Judgment as
a matter of Law in favor of Uibernta.

In addition, Louisiana law is clear that under the undisputed facts in
this case, Mibernia oved no fiduciary duty or other legal duty directly to these
Plaintiffs as alleged in che Petition. See Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 760 F.
Supp. 1208, 2218 (E.D. La. 1990) and cases cited therein; La. Act No. 581

(1991 Regular Sess.), L.R.S, 621126.

PORTOQ0000155


1647

‘NOT DESIGNATED

FOR, PUBLICATION
XN THE MATTER OP TEE WRONGFUL * NO. 86-CA-34
DEATH OF STANTON J. STARK
. COURT OF APPEAL
e PIPTH CIRCUIT
Ld STATE OF LOUISIANA

APPEAL FROM THE TWEVTY-POURTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NOMBER 263-171, DIVISION "A"
HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR., JUDGE

CHARLES GRISBAUM, JR.
qoDGE

‘JUN 9 2 1986

(Court composed of Judges‘ Lawrence A. Chehardy, Thomas J. Kliebert,
and Charles Grisbaum, Jr.)

W. PAUL ANDERSSON, for appellant
BAMME?T, LEAKE & HAMMETT

2800 Canal Place one
Mew Orleans, Loulsiana 70130-1193

EDWARD M. GORDON III, for appellees
4141 Veterans Boulevard, Suite 214
Metairie, Louisiana 70002

JONN R. STARK, for appellees’
IN PROFER PERSON

5909 Lafreniere Street
Metairie, Louisiana 70003

AMENDED IW PART, AND AS AMENDED, APPIRMED

+ PoRTQOOG0082


1836

T7A-HO- Fr
Ccuntinuntion of FD-302 of JUDGE THOMAS PORTEOUS -0__8/18/94 __.rage__2
he was paid a sum of $10,000, or for that matter, any sum in

exchange for an agreement to reduce the bond for KEITH KLINE.

With regards to an allegation that PORTEOUS had
received $1,500 to reduce a bond in a matter involving a TRACY
IRELAND, who had been arrested for theft, PORTEOUS, already
having been avare of this allegation from previous discussion
with JOLENE ACY (as referenced above), had the criminal file
available for review. PORTEOUS pointed out that IRELAND’s bond
had originally been set at $300,000, based on a mere two counts
of theft, The bond was initially set by Judge JOHN MOLAISON.
Upon review of the matter, PORTEOUS agreed to reduce the bond to
a $50,000 property bond. ‘He recalls ADAM BARNETT
bondsman in this matter,
a long time. PORTEOUS stated that he felt,
Jefferson Parish jails being extremely overcr:
(last year), the fact that the details of the arrest did not
appear to warrant such a high bond, along with limited criminal
history of the defendant, this situation warranted a reduction in
bond. PORTEOUS pointed out that the bond was reduced to a
$50,000 property bond. Although it was later shown that the
surety was insufficient for the amount of the bond, the defendant
appeared in court for every hearing, and vas ultinitely given

Ft ced on probation. He

newspaper as making an
issue of this technical error in allowing a property bond to be

urety. PORTEOUS stated that
a technical error here, ie proved to bea
harmless error, in light of the fact that the defendant never
failed to appear for any of her court hearings, However,
PORTEOUS again categorically denied that he had been given $1,500
or any amount of money to reduce the bond for TRACY IRELAND.

Judge PORTEOUS also denied that he had ever owned a
yacht either individually or Jointly with others, and
furthermore, denied that he had ever owned any type of boat. He
also denies he had ever been present when cocaine,
marijuana, or any other illegal narcotic vas being utilized. He
0 denied that he had ever used any illegal narcotic

jonally.

bt

Judge PORTEOUS denied that he had ever signed
any bail bonds "in bisnky* and stated thet he way unsvare of
anything in his background that might be the basis of attempted

8


Porteous & Mustakas

3445 North Causeway Blvd.

Metairie, LA 70002

City Attorney’s Office
City of Harahan

- 6437 Jefferson Hwy.
Harahan, LA 70123

Porteous, Lee & Mustakas
139 Huey P. Long Ave.
Gretna, LA 70053

Edwards, Porteous & Lee
139 Huey P. Long Ave.
Gretna, LA 70053

Edwards, Porteous & Amato

139 Huey P. Long Ave.
Gretna, LA 70053

Attorney General

State of Louisiana
P.O.Box 94005

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

B & L Associates

Dick Barrios

512 Acadia

Baton Rouge, LA 70806
(800) 673-0545

(504) 751-4791
Position: Clerk/Assistant

Partner
April 1980 - August 1984

City Attorney
July 1,1982 - August 23,1984

Partner
February 1976 - April 1980

Partner
August 1974 - January 1976

Partner
October 1973 - July 1974

Special Counsel

September 10, 1971 - October 7, 1973

1970 - 1971

PORTO00000018


1798

#D-3008 (Rey. 1-15-83)

TTAHQ-

Doatinaation of FD-202 of JUDGE THOMAS PORTEOUS: 0n__8/18/94 rue 3.

influence, pressure, coercion or compronise and/or vould impact
negatively on his character, reputation, judgement or discretion.

PoRToOOOaN4S4


1841

pursuant to USC 636 as may be required in this case. This assignment shall be
for the duration of the case. by Judge Helen G. Berrigan (originally docketed
3/16/04) (jd) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

ORDER that this case be UNSEALED by Judge George P. Kazen Date Signed:
3/16/04 (jd) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS filed by plaintiff USA with intent to seek criminal
forfeiture of listed property recorded in the name of Sisters Marcotte, L.L.C. as
to defendant Louis M Marcotte III (jd) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

MINUTE ENTRY (3/17/03) initial appearance of Louis M Marcotte III held;
Attorneys Richard W. Westling & Martin E. Regan Jr. present; dft informed
court that counsel would be retained; personal surety Bond set $50,000 ; dft
released on bond; arraignment held, by Magistrate Judge Johnson (jd) (Entered:
03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

MINUTE ENTRY (3/17/04) dft Louis M Marcotte III arraigned; not guilty plea
entered; Attorneys Richard Westling & Martin Regan Jr present, dft released on
bond; waiver of indictment executed; re-arraignment set for 10:00 3/18/04
before Judge George Kazen. by Magistrate Judge Johnson (jd) (Entered:
03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

MINUTE ENTRY (3/17/04) initial appearance of Lori M Marcotte held;
Attorney John Wilson Reed present; personal surety Bond set for $10,000 ; dt
teleased on bond; arraignment held. by Magistrate Judge Johnson (jd) (Entered:
03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

MINUTE ENTRY (3/17/04) dft Lori M Marcotte arraigned; not guilty plea
entered; Attorney John Reed present; dft released on bond ; waiver of
indictment executed; re-arraignment set for 10:00 3/18/04 before Judge George
Kazen. by Magistrate Judge Johnson (jd) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/17/2004

(filed 3/18/04) WAIVER of Indictment by defendant Louis M Marcotte III (Ig)
(Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/17/2004

be] &

(filed 3/18/04) WAIVER of Indictment by defendant Lori M Marcotte (Ig)
(Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

fe

MINUTE ENTRY ( 3/17/04) Ordered that the Section for this case is hereby
designated GPK by Judge George P. Kazen (Ig) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

FACTUAL BASIS as to defendant Louis M Marcotte III (1g) (Entered:
03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

PLEA Agreement as to Louis M Marcotte III (Ig) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

‘Addendum to PLEA Agreement as to Louis M Marcotte Ill (Ig) (Entered:
03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

FACTUAL BASIS as to defendant Lori M Marcotte (Ig) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

PLEA Agreement as to Lori M Marcotte (Ig) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

BIE IB] BIE] &

Addendum to PLEA Agreement as to Lori M Marcotte (Ig) (Entered:

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?923498370931478-L_567_0-1 10/15/2008


1854

i On November 30, 2001, Judge A and Bail Bondsman #1 played golftogether.

The same day, Judge A set a $2,000.00 commercial bond for one defendant and a $20,000.00

commercial bond and a $60,000.00 personal surety bond for another defendant, all at the request of

BBU.

je On December 4, 2001, Bail Bondsman #1 bought lunch for Judge A at a
restaurant in Gretna, Louisiana. The same day, at the request of BBU, Judge A set a $10,000.00
commercial bond and a $31,500.00 personal surety bond on a defendant.

k. On December 6, 2001, Bail Bondsman #1 bought lunch for Judge A at a
restaurant in Grema, Louisiana. The same day, at BBU's request, Judge A set a $30,000.00

commercial bond and a $110,000.00 personal surety bond on a defendant.
I OnDecember.18,.200].BBU paid fora Christmas luncheon for Judge A'sstaff

at a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana in an amount in excess of $700.00. BBU also furnished

the liquor for another Christmas party hosted by Judge A

m. — OnJanuary8, 2002, Bail Bondsman #l and Judge A played golftogether. The

same day, at BBU’s request, Judge A set a $25,000.00 commercial bond and a $33,000.00 personal

Surety bond for a defendant.

a On February 12, 2002, Bail Bondsman #1 cashed out $200.00 from BBU for

“entertainment” for Judge A. The next day, Bail Bondsman #1 and Judge A played golf in Pass
Christian, Mississippi. On February 15, 2002, Judge A deposited $200.00 cash into his personal
checking account. ,

o. On February 13, 2002, at the request of BBU, Judge A set a $4,000.00
commercial bond and a $6,000.00 personal surety bond for a defendant.

p. On April 3, 2002, in Judge A's chambers, Bail Bondsman #1 pulled an
envelope containing $5,000.00 in cash out of his pants pocket and handed it to Judge A saying,
“Coming to deliver on my promise.” Judge A responded, “Appreciateit.” Bail Bondsman # further

stated, “Put that away somewhere.” On August 20, 2002, Judge A wrote a check from his personal

10


1765

in pain or nothing." Randall died as a result of the stab

wounds.

Following the stabbing, Lane Nelson took Randall's car
keys and about $65.00 from the apartrent and began to drive
toward what he believed was Florida. After about two hours
of driving drunkenly, Nelson fell asleep at a roadside rest
area. Nelson learned the next morning that he had been
driving west, rather than east, so he changed his direction
and headed towards the Florida Gulf Coast. At about 7:00
P.M. that evening the car, holding Lane Nelson and a
hitchhiker, collided with the rear of a disabled truck on
Interstate 10 in Madison County, Florida. ‘This is when Lane
Nelson was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the
influence of alcoholic beverages.

Subsequently, the defendant was charged by indictment
in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana with the crime of first
degree murder. After a trial by jury he wes found “guilty”
as charged and received the death penalty.

CLAIM I
Defendant's first claim is that the jurors in his case

+ wera improperly disqualified for cause.
Defendant asserts that juror LaCrouts was improperly

disqualified for cause. Juror LaCrouts stated that she
would he able to convict the defendant if the State had
proven‘his guilt beyond.a reasonable doubt, but she might
not be able to consider imposing the death penalty.
Defendant claims that the exclusion of juror LaCrouts solely
because of her conscientious or religious scruples against
the death penalty caused his trial jury to be unrepresent-
ative and biased in favor of the prosecution. The issue of
whether the exclusi¢n of jurors from the guilt/innocence
phase of a trial in a bifurcated trial system, who are not
death qualified, results in juries which are more likely to
convict, and whether the exclusion of such jurors denies the
defendant his right to a trial by jury from a representative

cross-section of the community was discussed by the United

PORTOOGO00200


1696

O75's 7USET7E
.. Further, damages for ental anquish and attorney fees are awarded
under Louisiana Untair Trade Practice Act.

Both defendaats, Zehentner and Henderson, vere experienced real estate
agents being involved in hundred of acts of sale, admitted that they found
this situation uausual, had never bean involved in such a transaction, yet
did nothing as agents for plaineiff to protect his interest or advise hin of
this peculiarity.

The court finds the defendancs solidarily Liable for theit acctons. Even
though obligations arise fron separate acts or for different reasons, defendants
are solidarily Liable vhere they are obligated to do the same thing. Perez

Fara, 459 So. 24 218. Jotner v. Dianond M. Drilling, 688 F. 24 256.

As co damages, it has been stipulated chat plaintiff is encitled to

mS

Ie ds also stipulated that che sum of soney necessa:

spectfic performance.
to release che property from its present encumbrances dy che FSLIC is
TRIRTY-THREE THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($33,000.00) DOLLARS.

As co the avard for mantal anguish, £¢ 1s clear co che court chat plaineite
4s entitled tan avard for his mental suffering because of the {acentional fraud
by Villere and the negligence of che real estate agents vho were employed by hin.

Me, Egudin presently works at che Time Saver, working the 11 co 7 shite.

Me testified chat he only clears THO HUGORED AND 80/100 ($200.00) DOLLARS a
week. fe has paid TEN THOUSAND ONE EUWDBED SIXTY-STK AND 74/100 (410,166.74)
DOLLARS {n Littgarion cost and IVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINETY AND WO/L00
(427,090.00) DOLLARS in attorvey fees are presently outstanding. Mr. Bgudin

cestified that he used his Ldfesavings to purchase’ che hone. Because of
ings, be cook a bottle of valiuas

bis problens in loosing his hone and lif
fm an attempt to comit suicide. There is mo question in the court's mind
that plaine4£e"s wental anquish vas excrenely severe. The court accordingly

avards TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND AND WO/100 ($200,000.00) DOLLARS for mental

pain and anguish.

As to attorney's fees, Mr. Levenson has testified as to che number of

hours he has in this case and the court finds an avard of TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND

RINETY AND NO/100 (527,090.00) DOLLARS tope reasonable under the circumstances.
Gretna, Louisiana. ents _ /7 a July, 1987, :



24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 263-271 DIVISION “a"
IN THE MATTER OF THE
WRONGFUL DEATH OF STANTON J. STARK
PILED: » 1985 DEPUTY CLERK:

Z)
Dépadre Te
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. eon Sax

In respect to the judgment notwithstagding tuaryery ct,

the court finds the facts of the case warrant the following,
Viewing the evidence most favorable to the party against
whom the motion is made, the court finds that defendant failed
to prove that plaintiff was in any way at fault in becoming an
“outrider on the vehicle, voluntarily. All evidence preponderates
to the finding that plaintiff found himself in a position of
imminent peril without sufficient time to consider and weigh all
circumstances or the best means that may be adopted to avoid the

impending danger.
There was no evidence presented which could substantiate

a finding that the emergency was brought about by any alleged
fault on the part of stanton J. Stark.

Tim Talbot testified that vhen Stanton got to the car
the lights and engine were off. Norman McKay testified that the
car was stopped when Stanton was on the threshold.

It is clear from the testimony of those présent who
could recall the particulars of how Stanton came to be on the
atito that Stanton was positioned between ox/on the threshold and
the open car door when the vehicle began to move. The driver aid
not use reasonable care in taking on its passenger; Stanton had
every right to assume that the vehicle would not move until he
was safely away or inside the vehicle, It is also clear that
once the vehicle did pull forward Stanton was on the horns of a
ilenma that only hindsight and cool reflection could have possibly
provided a safe escape. The law clearly does not hold plaintiff
to this standard of conduct, See Carter v. City Parish Government |

423 So. 2d 1080 (La. 1982). ‘

fo 202

PORTOG0000137


1820

EXHIBIT INDEX

EXHIBITS: DESCRIPTION ‘PAGE RECEIVED:

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS

DEFENDANT‘S EXHIBITS

PORTOO0000627


1757

5

Given the facts of this case ve cannot hold that the trial
court abused its discretion in awarding Mr. Cerullo a total of
$5,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

Mr. Cerulle also complains that the court erred in failing
to award him $2,423.00 as reimbursement for outstanding advancea
for nedical expenses and costs related to the case. Mr. Carullo
introduced copies of cancelled checks mada out to Ms, watts
totaling $425.00, two checks to the clerk of court totaling
$130,00 and several other checks for various medical expenses
totaling $689.00. Those costs total $1,244.00. Mr. Carullo also
asks for reimbursement for an additional $1,179.00 for litigation
costs guarantees The trial court judgment awarded Mr. Cerulio
reimbursement for the initial filing fee but was silent as to the

other costs.
Recently, in Dupuis v. Faulk, 609 So.2d 1190, at 1192,
(La.app. 3rd Cir, 1992), the court stated

The Privilege for attorney's fees is
granted by La. B.S. 5001 and R.S. 372218.
Both statutes were amended by Acts 1989, No.
78 § 2, effective June 16, 1989, to include
the following definitions:

925002 .
B. The term "professional feed, as
Used in this Section, means the
agreed upon fee, whether fixed or
contingent, and’any and all other
ancunts advanced by the attorney to
or on behalf of tha client, as
permitted by the Rulea of
Professional Conduct of the
Louisiana State Bar Association.

37:28
B. The term fee", aa usad in thie
Section, means the agreed upon fee,
Whether fixed or contingent, and
any and ail other anounts advanced
hy the attorney to or on behalf of
the elient, as permitted by the
Rules of Professional Conduct of
‘the Louisiana state Bar :
Association.

The Rules of Professional Conduct of the
Louiciana Bar Association with regard to the
advances made to a client are found in Rule

1.8(e):

{o) A lawyer shall not provide
financial assistance to a client in
connection with pending or
Eeotemplated litigation, except

ats

PORTOO0000192


1746

On appeal is a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
(3.N.0.V.) disposition of a wrongful death matter in which
the jury had allocated fault 44 percent to Stephen Douglas
and 56 percent to the decedent, Stanton stark. We amend

and, as amended, we affirm.

We are called upon to determine:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in failing
to credit GEICO for the $10,000 paid by the auto liability
insurer, ‘State Farm; and
(2) Whether the trial court erred in granting

the J.N.O.V, in that (a) it erroneously reassessed percentages

PORTO00000181


1642

Lenuue 243 Jo yunowe 243 aututezap ‘seas 4ayz0 pub aay
wo}3Ri3}UL 94q Jo ZuNGWe ayy aULuLazap ‘sMel-<q 403[e
pue axew 03 Azpu0yINe sey SYOLIZYIG 40 GYVOG SUL

._"W013es0ds09
2if3 UP 4903S JO saueYs panss} pue pazitougne [Le
SP1OY ay Ue Asployy2035 auo A\uO st a4ayz uasoud
QW “sdapLouyaoas aya Xq paz2al@ A{np usaq oAcy
Suossa09ns yay) [19UN 40 ‘UO} 4092 41943 Jo 2370p.
BUI Woy Uw|k (T) BuO 40s BASES SYOLITYIG 40 GYWOd
Byy 40 SAsquew ayy “suosiad (€) s2447 wey B40u
Ou 40 pasoduo2 syoL93¥10 JO CuvOe 243 U! parser auc
Saamod azeuod.io2 [[@ pue GNLD aya 30 JuaueBeuew ayy,

‘sasodund. pue
S¥92fqo adoge ay2 Jo 3UaWYSL{dwor9e 243
0} aueuie6 40 Aaessarau sBuiys 4aiQo [Le
pue Aue op 03 tsqsan6 pue suaqueu S31
40 yuaudo[aAsp enaza_iaqus pue tesow
“Leolsdyd aya aoueyus 7 Se Sa}31A139e
Buyjuods pue Leangino ‘{evorqeau9e4 yons
yONpUOD pue azUeBIO ‘ezouo1d 01 ts3senb
pur s.iaqueu si} 40 149Uaq pue asn ayer
“fad ay3 405 Sood Sutumpns auow 10 auo
Pue sun09 siuueg uoaiay; azeuado pue
‘BsyM4ayO-4o sseal ‘aseyound Aq ‘aapnboe
03 fs3sen6 pue siaquow $34 jo 95m ay,
40} qnt> Aagunod pue 4106 azeayid e se
‘ues 243 aqesado 07 pur ‘sazeI5z neazRYD
S@ unouy soauayz qued 3e42 UL ‘eueLs{No
40 9815 ‘wossaJsa¢ 40 Ysiueg 2u3 UL
p3e20| Uoa1ay3 szuawencadut 42430 (LE
pue asnoygnty © UZIM Jayjab0q ‘asino>
$106 eBoy (BT) Uaagybla Ue ‘astMiay30 YO
aseal ‘aseysund Aq ‘aapnboe 02 ania siya
40 asodind pue go3fqo auy aq [Leys 31

£24e gM79 AMINNOD GNY 3709 NVILYHO
40 S3SOd¥Nd ONY S199°GO Byr ‘4azUeYD S31 UL paaeas sy

GN AYLNNOD ONY
SE, 1 Dy

PORTOOO000077


1824

C.CrP, Art. 881.1
++ mara and Sttniry Notes ==
Sesion af Acs 17 No. 38 of wi emuned CCP. we
Bliw tis wd to 6) pros
"Seca t~therpovdonr tht AG al bere ae 8
fesse groped byte Loci Sowentng means
Steer Uae! *

‘The sesteocing gudeioes became eflecive Jan, 1, 1992.

> Art 881.2. Review of sentence

~ Ac-(1) The-defendant may appeal of seek review of
4 sentence based on any ground asserted in a motion
to reconsider sentence. The defendant also may seek
review of a sentence which exceeds the maximum
sentence authorized by-the statute under which the
defendant was convicted and any applicable starutory
enhancement provisions. ~
__(2) The defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a
“BEietice-lsiposod in confermity with e-plea- agreement
seh wat fi tbe ead te ne of
lea.
B. The state may appeal or seek review of a sea”
tence:

(1) If the seatence imposed was not in conformity
wits .

(2) Mandatory requirements of the starute under
which the defendant was convicted or any other appli-
cable mandatory sentence provision; or

@) The euhancement provisions under
ch Babheal Stender Laws RS, 091" nd

(2) If the state objected at the time the sentence was
imposed or made or filed a motion to reconsider
sentence under this Article. Added by Acts 1991, No.
3 § 1, Gf Jan 31, 1992.

iorical and Startory Notes
For provision relating tothe effective cate ofthis section. ste ote
vader CCA, are 51.1.

Art. 8813. Record on review of sentence

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

526

tesentence by tie tial court. The appellate court may"
‘give direction to the trial court concerning the proper
sentence to impose.

B. In the interest of justice, the appellate court may
remand the case for resentencing before a judge other
than the judge who imposed the inkl sentence.

CI necessary 10 an appropriate disposition of a
ootion to reconsider sentence, the appellate court may
remand the case ¢o the trial court with instructions to
supplement the record’ ér to hold an evidentiary hear-
ing.

D. The appellate court shall not set aside a sen-
tence for failure to impose a sentence in conformity
‘with the sentencing guidelines or for excessiveness if
the record supports the sentence imposed. Added by
Acts 1991, No, 38, § 31, eff. Jan. 31, 1992.

Hisar and Setetery Notet
Poviton rating to the elev due ofthis seein, S08 note
wan Con weenL

ARC BBLS." Cota

court

gn? mason ofthe sate or the defendant, or on is

own motion, at any time, the court may correct a

sentence imposed ty that court which exceeds the

maximum semence authorized by law. Added by Acts
41991, No, 38, § 1, off. Jan. 31, 1992

orca and Stary Notes
reatog ve the elective date ofthis secon se note
eho aa

ih dentence by triad

For
weer
‘Art. 881.6. Etlect upon sentence

No sentence shall be declared unlawful, inadequate;
or excestive solely duc to the failure of the court to
impose a sentence in conformity with the sentencing
guidelines of the commission. Added by Acts 1991, No.
38 1, of Jan 31, 1992.
lier ond Statutory Note. —

«in reviewing late court may

‘consider the record of the case which shall include any

‘evidence or relevant information jnroduced at prelim-
ary ease, ua hearings on arraignmens,

seaweocing proceedings end say relevent information

«8 presentance investigation report fled into

davai, eprops cass. ch cow say ardor
that tbe presentonce report, or any pordon thereot be
eld pace sk Added by Acti 1991, No. 38, 1. eff
fan. 31, 1992.

inecil snd Satery Note
For provision relaceg tothe effucve dame of chit section see oes
wader CO, are BLL,

‘Art. B6L4, Action by appellate court

A.” If the appellate court finds that a sentence must
bbe set aside on any ground, the court shall remitid for

rao 0 te eevee of eon 08 ste

won ESE

Otay Ark 882 areca of len senteaes review of
legal sen

—-Ar-An-ilegal- sentence-may- be corrected -at any
time by the court that imposed the sentence or by 2a
appellate court on review.

neg seenee may be reviewed at ro is legaliy on

the application of the defendant or of the state:

(1) In an appealable case by appeal; or

@) Im an unappealable case by writs of certiorari
and prohibition.

©. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to
deprive any defendant of his right, in 8 proper case, to
{he wet of habeas corp. Amended by Act 1964, Ne

PORTGO0000673


1600

Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Murder. This was the first
capital case I tried. The trial involved complex issues of law and fact.

Multiple motions to suppress were argued. A photographic line up was suppressed,
but the victim’s in-court identification was allowed because a sufficient predicate
was established to show an independent basis for the identification. Final
Disposition: Jury verdict - Guilty of Murder, Death Sentence; Supreme Court -
Affirmed conviction, death sentence annulled and set aside per: Furman _v

Georgia, 408 U.S. 238; remanded, life imprisonment.

Defense Counsel:

Philip Schoen Brooks
723 Hillary St.

New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 866-6666

8. State v. Christopher J. Rebstock

Criminal # 82-67, 24th Judicial District Court
Division “A", Judge Roy A. Price
Citation: 413 So.2d 510, (April, 1982); 418 So.2d 1306, (La. Sept 1982)

Motion to Suppress Confession: April 13, 1982.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: 2nd Degree Murder. The case
involved a sixteen year old. Issues of law involving the statements he made to
police. There were two statements involved. One was an inculpatory statement
made to his father. The other was a recorded confession. The Supreme Court held
that the boy’s arrest -was not illegal and the statement obtained as result of the
arrest was admissible since the boy and his father had a short private conversation
in police station, free from presence of police. A second recorded confession was
suppressed because the court found the defendant did not knowingly and
intelligently waive his constitutional rights.

Final disposition of case: Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and received 21

years.

20

PoRTOOOOO00SS


1792

TUL-22-1934 10:20 FRE FBI (NEW ORLEANS SRD 7 TO ezezsza Fo P.OS

ATTACHMENT 1

Clark, ef al v, Edwards, et al,
# 86-435, U.S, Distcict Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Suit challenging the method of election of judges in Louisiana, All judges
‘were gued as nominal parties; we were sued in our official capacity.
Resolution: Jefferson Parish, the 24th Judicial District Court, established
sub-districts wherein an individual candidate runs, as opposed to running
throughout the entire parish as was previously the procedure.

# 413-728, 24th Judicial District Court
Declaratory judgment on constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 15:144(B)XD). All
judges were sued, we were sued in our official capacity.

Resolution: Supreme Court issued a TRO and remanded to lower court. At
the request of the Chief Justice and all interested parties, we have deferred

further proceedings pending resolution by the legislature.

05-29, Sak ees bane

Constitationality of LSA-R.S. 13:994(B\(1),(2),G). This concerned a
Lonisiana statute which assessed a 2% fee on bail bonds. All judges were
sued as nominal parties in their official capacity.

Pending.

#90-4667 U. 8. Distict Coust, Bestoma Distt of Locboee

Constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 13:994(B)(1),@),(). This concemed a
Louisiana statute which assessed a 2% fee on bail bonds, All judges were
Sted as neminal parties in their official capacity. This is S Nienaly te same
claim as Sierra, et Lo Governor Roer etal except
it ‘was filed in Federal court.

Injunction granted.

PORTOGGO00299


1671

Criminal # 76-2116, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "J", Judge Patrick E. Carr
Citation: None, defendant died while, out on bond prior to appeal.

Jury Trial, December 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19th, 1977.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Second Degree Murder. This
was a major case involving a prominent local lawyer; it received a lot of public
attention. The case was made more complex because of the health of defendant.
Medical support was provided during trial in the event the defendant required
treatment. The appearance of defendant on a stretcher invoked the emotions of the
jury and it took considerable perseverance to prevent the jury from being swayed
by sympathy.

Final Disposition: Verdict - Guilty as charged; No appeal; defendant alleged to
have committed ‘suicide, body found in trunk of car.

Co-Counsel for State:

Assistant District Attorney William Hall
3500 N. Hullen Street

Metairie, LA 70002

(504) 456-8692

Defense Counsels:
Robert Broussard (deceased)
Roy Price (deceased)
5. State of Louisiana v. Jan J. Poretto
Criminal # 80-1980, 81-1003, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "G", Judge Herbert Gautreaux
Citation: 468 So.2d 1142, (La. May,1985); 475 So.2d 314,(La. Sept.,1985)
Jury Trial, November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6th, 1981.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Second Degree Murder,
10

PORTO00000105


1607

CLE programs, such as: the Jefferson Bar Association, Louisiana Judicial
College and Louisiana State Bar Association Summer School for Lawyers

Since I took the bench, I invited field trips to Division "A", 24th J.D.C. for
school children about once a month. The students would observe the docket
and I then speak with them on the working of the court system. Afterwards,
L entertain questions to explain either the particular case or the function of

the courts.

have also visited many schools in Orleans and Jefferson Parish to speak on
the court systems, the functions and the duties of a judge.

Judging Moot Court Competitions on numerous occasions at Tulane School
of Law and Loyola Law School.

I recently participated in the National Institute of Trial Advocacy program
at Louisiana State University School of Law

At Loyola School of Law, I volunteered as co-instructor for Civil Procedure
for two terms.

To serve the community, since 1978, I continue to be active with the
Recreation Department for the Parish of Jefferson in coaching and
refereeing.

The American Bar Association’s Commentary to its Code of. Judicial
Conduct states that it is inappropriate for a judge to hold membership in any
organization that invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or
religion. Do you currently belong, or have you belonged, to any
organization which discriminates -- through either formal membership
requirements or the practical implementation of membership policies? If so,
list, with dates of membership. What you have done to try to change these
policies?

No.

Is there a selection commission in your jurisdiction to recommend candidates
for nomination to’ the federal courts? If so, did it recommend your

27

PorTo00000042


1818

TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CouRT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

WARE RE Ree ROE ROR ER eR EERE

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 89-2360

vs. DIVISION *A*

AUBRY WALLACE
oererrrtettearetrisciciis7

PROCEEDINGS taken in the above
numbered and entitled cause before the Honorable G.
Thomas Porteous, Judge presiding, on October 14,

1994.

APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff:
Michael Reynolds
Por the Defendant:

Robert R

Reported by: Lisa Broussard, official Court
Reporter

PORTOOO000B25


1814

WITNESS INDEX

WITNESSES: PAGE NO.?

PorToo0000621


1732

‘tate the main portion of the office because he did not want his tandlard, siso
an attomey, to know of the case. This was the only meeting Mrs. Watts had
at his office.

Mrs, Watts testified to three years of frustration while under the guidance
of Mr. Cerullo. The attorney/client relationship between Mr. Cerullo and Mes.
Watts was characterized by the lawyer's failure to communicate with the client,
meetings outside of his office at places such as the clients apartment compiex,
a candy store where Mrs. Watts worked in the evenings after her regular
teaching job, and on one occasion, an evening encounter in the parking lot of
the apartment complex where that attorney met the claimant, Polly Watts, for
the first and only time.

Judith Watts detailed how Mr. Cerullo continually explained that her suit
would be settled, even giving spurious future dates when the settlement would
be completed. He never éxplained to her that the suit had not been answered
and could not be placed on the trial docket. She was not advised that it had
not even been served upon defendants.

As a result of one misrepresentation, Mrs. Watts moved from her
apartment into a more expansive one. ‘She expected that the settlement,
Promised to be immediately forthcoming by Mr. Cerullo, would help pay. the
added rent expense. The settlement never materialized and the Watts were
unable to pay the increased rent without borrowing funds.

Ordinarily, the Court would be inclined to regard this incident as an error
in judgment by Mrs, Watts. However, it is obvious that the plaintiff was not
given complete information by her attorney upon which to base a sound
decision. For example, she was never told that her petition had”not been
Served, that the information requested by the defendant had not been sent by
Mr. Cerullo, and that her attorney's “theory” required delaying settlement to |

observe the minor's development. In the opinion of the Court, Mr. Cerullo’s

PORTO00000167


1632

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Policy Devélopment

Washington, D.C. 20536

June 28, 1994

CON]

The Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Judicial Department of Louisiana
Gretna Courthouse~Annex Building
Gretna, Louisiana 70053

Dear Mr. Porteous:

In connection with your candidacy for appointment to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, we have requested a formal report from the ABA
Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary.

In order to facilitate the ABA Committee's evaluation,
please send the information provided in your response to the
Personal Data Questionnaire to both the Chairman and the
Circuit representative of the Committee, whose names and
addresses, respectively, are as follows:

Robert P. Watkins, Esq.
Williams. & Connolly

725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.
Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.
Barnett Tower, Suite 2300

One Pregress Plaza

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

PORTOO0000067


1834

PD-302 (Rev. 3-10-42)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date of transcription __ 8/18/94

Judge THOMAS PORTEOUS, State Court Judge for the 24th
District of Louisiana, located in Gretna, Louisiana (LA),
telephonically contacted this interviewing Agent in the New
Orleans Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
PORTEOUS advised that he had telephoned his office in Gretna, LA,
from Baton Rouge, LA, where he was teaching a clas
had called in to request any m
Civil Court Clerk, JOLENE ACY had been interviewed
day by FBI Agents of New orleans office. As a result, she was
noticeably unnerved. PORTEOUS had been advised by ACY of the
nature of the interview, and stated that he seemed to recall
being involved in bond reduction matters involving former
criminal defendants, TRACY IRELAND and KEITH KLINE. He further
stated that he seemed to recall that KLINE’s bond was originally
set at a very high sum of money, but upon request by the
arresting officer, name unrecalled, he (PORTEOUS) agreed to
reduce the bond considerably. PORTEOUS also absolutely denied
that any money was received by him as a fee for agreeing to
reduce the bond in the KLINE natter.

With regards to the TRACY IRELAND matter, PORTEOUS
stated he recalled agreeing to reduce her bond after obtaining
information about the complainant, which convinced him that the
charges against her did not merit such a high bond being set.

Investigation on _§/17/94 __st_New Orleans, LouisianaFis# 77A-HO; =F __
(Telephonically)
*y SA BOBBY P, HAMIL, JR./gim_ Datedictated 8/18/94
ca

This docoment contains neither commendations nor conclusions af the FBI. It the property of the FBI and ts louned to your agency:

‘and le contents are not to be istibated outsize your agency.

HP Exhibit 69)


1771

The Supreme Court of Louisiana and the United states
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously held that
erroneous statements by the prosecution during closing
argument would constitute harmless error in light of the

trial court's curative admonition to the jury and the

Nation,

strength of evidence against the defendant.

701 F.2d 31 (Sth Cir.1983), cert.denied 104 §.Ct. 175(1983);

v. Grapp, 653 F.24 189(Sth Cir.1981); State v. P
422 So.2d

422 So.2d 1157{La.1982); State v. Felde,
370{La.1982), 103 s.ct. 1903(1983).

At one point in the trial, the-prosecutor during his
rebuttal argument in response to defense‘s closing argument
stated that defense counsel's “fonction in life, or with
this defendant, is to make inside look out, black look
white, up seem down - confuse and befuddle the issue,
whatever you want to do." Trial transcript, January 7,
1982, p.101, lines 20-22. The court instructed the jury to
@isregard the remark and the prosecutcr apologized. The
Suprene Court of Louisiana stated, "Any influence from the
improper remarks was cured by the precautionary instruc-

tion." State v. Nelson, 459 $0.24 510 at p.517(La.1984).

Defendant asserts that remarks made by the prosecutor
during voir dire examination, opening statement and rebuttal
argument were prejudicial and unduly influenced the jury.
This argument has no merit in light of the fact that the

court gave the following instructions to the jury:

Statements and arguments made by the
attorneys are not evidence. In the
opening statements, the attorneys are
permitted to familiarize you with the
facts they expect to prove. In closing
arguments the attorneys are permitted
to present for your consideration their
contentions regarding what the evidence
. has shown or not shown and what .
conclusions they think may be dravn
from the evidence. The opening
statenents and the closing arguments
are not to be considered as evidence.

You are not to be influenced by
sympathy, passion, prejudice, or public
opinion. You are expected to reach a
just verdict.

~12-

PORTOO0000206


1716

peculiar kind of case for the panel because of the facts related to the
“allegations of Dr. Uilltams' alcohol abuse and because chere was evidence
presenced from a divorce suic.

When the doctor was asked “Go you have an ‘opinion as co vhecher
oF noc a physician vho is suffering from atcohol and dcug dependency
has an_sffirmative obligdcion co explain to his patient that he is

suffering from chat dependency so that che pactene can know chat and

make che decision for che selection of physicians?TM. Dr. Levy responded
“L certainly think chac {f a physician or anybody in a position of Life
and death over someone knovs chat chey're suffering from this condition,
they should ac least lec this person know that they have chese problems".
Alchough, che facts of che case are novel, the lew on inforned

concent is clear. In Nondroulis v. Schumacher, $31 So. 2d 450, che

Coure stated: Because of che presumption created by the uniform consent
lav, plaiuetff's burden of proof has been described as follows, he must show:
(1) The exiscence of a material risk unknown to che pacienc;

(2) A fatture co-dischose chac risk on che parc of the physician;
(3) DisetBsure of ehe risk vould have Led 2 reasonable pactent ia
plainciff's posicion co rejece the medical procedure or choose
4 different course of treacment;
4) Injury."
The Court, in discussing what disclosures aust be wade, stated:
“Disclosure muse be made only vhen a risk is medically known and of &

eagnicuce chac would be material in @ reasonable patient's decision to

undergo creacuenc." Hondroulis, supra.

"When a aaterial risk which would have influenced a reasonable
person 1s proven, ic must then be show thatche creacing physician
breached a duty co disclose chac risk.”

“A fair reading of che statute indicates chat its enumeration of

risks is merely a Listing of che possible results about which disclosure

must be made," Hondroulis, supra,
Taking inco consideration the jurisprudence, the experc cestimony
and the decision of the Medical Review Panel, the Coure finds thac failing

co disclose an alcohol ebuse problem is a violation of che informed consent

stacuce.
As to the specific evidence that Dr. Williams vas in face suffering
from alcohol abuse, the Court finds che cestimony of Adele C. Williams, che /

former vife of Dr. Willians, co be persuasive on this point, Adele Willian

PORTOOO000151


1603

Robert Glass

530 Natchez Street

New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 581-9083 -

Patricia LeBlanc
1615 Metairie Road
Metairie, LA 70005
(504) 834-2612

Kathryn T. Wiedorn

3421 N. Causeway Blvd., 9th Floor
Metairie, LA 70002

(504) 831-4091

Allan Berger

4173 Canal Street

New Orleans, LA 70119
(504) 486-9481

Joseph R. McMahon, Jr.
111 Veterans Blvd.
Heritage Plaza, Ste. 740
Metairie, LA 70005
(504) 837-1844

19. Legal Activities: Describe the most significant legal activities you have
pursued, including significant litigation which did not progress to trial or
legal matters that did not involve litigation. Describe the nature of your
participation in this question, please omit any information protected by the
attorney-client privilege (unless the privilege has been waived).

State v. Lane Nelson, This matter was before me on defendant's application
for post conviction relief. Defendant was earlier found guilty, by a prior
court, of first degree murder and sentenced to death. I set aside the death
penalty because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant subsequently.
pled guilty to first degree and he was resentence to life in prison, without

23

PORTO0G060038


1635

SENT ‘BY? eres Telecopier 7020 y“y22-94 + MeSH a uye  SSNAREIH

O3-22-R4 (0:54 Wydoier

HONORABLE @. THOMAS PORTEQUS

4801 NEYREY DRIVE
METAIRIE, LA 70002
(304) 455-6879
(504) 966.3960
JUDICIAL AND LEGAL EXPERIENCE:
January 1992 - Chief Judge of the 24th Judicial District Court
Present .
August 1984 - sludge af the 24th Judiciat Oletrict Court, Division "ATM
Prasent Parish of Jetta

January 1973 « ‘Aasletant Olatrlet Attomey Parish of Jefferson
1904. 1876 to 1984, Felony Supervieor - in charge of major felony
prosecutions; mare notably, "
1973-1974 Chief Feiony Complaint Olvision
January 1871+ Louieiana Ds of sluntice
1973 Counsel, assigned to Criminal Division; tied felony cases

jpactel
InJoftaraan Parish, Caddo Pariah and Lafourche Parish. Ascigned
to Lousiana Supreme Court, responsible for ull eppeels and Writs:
of Habeas Corpus

1973 - Present Guostlecturer and speaker.
Judge, Loyola Maot Court Campottion.
Instructor of Criminal Law, Criminal Procsdure and Constitutional
Law et: St. Mary's Dominican Collage, Loyola
Sohal of Law, and detterson Parish Sheriff Office Training

Academy
January 1662 - City Attoray, City of Harahan
1984
1973-1984 Private General Civil Law Practice
Porteous and Mustakas
EDUCATION:
1971 Juris Doctorate
Louisiana State University School of Law, Saton Rouge
Finalist, Robert Loe Tullis Moot Court Compatition
1968 Sacholor of Arts, Major In Econamics

Louisiana State University, New Orleans
PORTOO0000070


1758

6

(2) A lawyer may advance court
costs and expenses of litigation,
the repayment of vhich may be
contingent on the outcome of the
matter; and

(2) A lawyer representing an
Andigent client may pay court costs
and expenses of litigation on
behalf of the client.

Rule 1.8(e) embodies the former Disciplinary
Rule 5-103(B):

Disciplinary Rule 5-103(B)
provides: “while representing a
client in connection with
contemplated or pending litigation,
a Gunnetes shall not advance or
financial assistance to
Eis client, except that the lawyer
may advance or guarantes the
expenses of litigation, including
court costs, expenses of
investigation, expenses of medical
examination, and costs of obtaining
and presenting evidence, provided
the client remains ultinately
Liable for such expenses."

n Louisiana state Bar Association v.
navine, 329 80.24 437 (La.1976), at page 446,

‘Supreme Court addressed the sEopeiety of
advancing financial assistance during
representation of a client:

Tf an impoverished person is unable
to: secure subsistence from sone
Source during disability, he may be
@eprived of the only effective
means by vhich he can wait out tha
necessary delays that result, from
Litigation to enforce his cause of
action. He may, for reasons o:
economic necessity and physical
need, be forced to settle his claim
for an inadequate amount.

‘The Dupuis court held that certain medical and living
expensea are now included a part of the "fee" for privilege
purposes, The court at 1193, further observed that:

«In extending tha privilege to cover such
advances, the legislature intended to

* overrule, at least in part,
) 376 80.28 495

(La. 1979).

In Calk, supra, the Louisiana Supreme
Court found that the word "fee" did not
include advances which are in the nature of a
loan, nor does it include the payment or
reimbursement of expenses which, like medical
hills, constitute the client’s special
damages...

PORTOO0000193


1764

One or two hours after Nelson went to the store,
Randall stated that he wished to perform oral sex on him.
When the defendant hesitated, Randall offered to pay him.
Nelson, who had not had any previous homosexual encounters,
was extremely distressed by this occurrence, but he was so
intoxicated and depressed by this time, that he let Randall
do as he pleased.

Shortly after this incident, Lane Nelson and Randall
left the apartment to go to a nearby Pizza Inn, where Nelson
consumed more alcohol, specifically, an entire pitcher of
beer. During their time at the restaurant Randall told Lane
Nelson a series of stories, trying to impress upon Kelson
that Randall was almost uncontrollably violent.” They then
returned to the apartment, at which point Nelson decided he
wanted to wash his clothes in the complex's laundromat.
However, before he left to do the laundry, Randall asked
that the defendant tie him to the bed and leave him there.

While doing his leundry, Lane Nelson finished the last
of the beer and the vodka and began to think of possible
methods of escaping from Randall, and his sexual practices,
as well as his apparently violent nature. He recalled that
Randall previously had explained that the car in which they
had been riding was a rental vehicle being paid for by
Randall's employer and that the car had not been returned in
a timely fashion to the rental company. Lane Nelson decided
to use the car to get away from the situation,

At about 6:30 P.M. that same evening, Lane Nelson
returned to the apartment from the laundromat in 2 drunken,
agitated state and informed: Randall, who still was tied to
the bed, that he planned to take the car and leave the New
Orleans area with it. Randall protested in a falsetto voice
and accused the defendant of wanting to kill him. At this
point Lane Nelson “flipped out...and just stabbed himTM with
a knife. Randall asked for medical help, but Nelson stabbed

him several more times because he did not want to “see him

_PORTO00000199


1672

Aggravated Battery. The defendant in this case was a New Orleans policeman.
Major question concerning use of certain statements and hypnotic procedures used
on the wife by the police.

Final Disposition: Jury Verdict - Guilty as charged; Affirmed.

Co-Counsel for State:

Assistant District Attorney Gordon Konrad
P.O. Box 10890

Jefferson, LA 70181 /or

3900 River Rd., Suite 6

Jefferson, LA 70121

(504) 831-9985

Defense Counsel:

Ralph Whalen

3170 Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
(504) 582-2333

ie isial
Criminal # 81-4045, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "J", Judge Jacob Karno
Citation: 461 So.2d 1073 (La. App. Sth Cir 1984)

6.

Jury Trial, August 12, 13, 14, 15th, 1982.
Sole Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Aggravated rape case
involved a vicious attack on a young woman. Defense put the victims’s credibility
at issue because she voluntarily left with the attacker and she was employed as a
bartender. Throughout the trial the defendant remained belligerent, this compelled
the trial judge to isle waittings. Use of restraints were later necessitated in order
to maintain appropriate trial decorum.

Final Disposition: Jury verdict - Guilty as charged; Sth Cir. Ct of Appeals -
Affirmed.

ul

PORTOO0000107


1735

sentences, and the longest, his last, contained six sentences.

The Court, upon examining the entire record and in tight of its years of
experience, finds that Mr. Cerullo probably spent no more than 30 hours
working on this case over the three years that he was employed as the Watts’
attorney. Out of an abundance of fairness the Court will add to that thirty
hours, another ten hours, reaching a total of forty hours. At ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY-FIVE ($125.00) DOLLARS per hour, the maximum fee to which Mr.
Cerulto is entitied is FIVE THOUSAND ($5,000.00) DOLLARS. Additionally, the
Court will return the cost of the initial filing fee. :

In conclusion, the Court finds that Mr. Cerullo’s contribution to the
ultimate resolution of the case was minimal. His sole accomplishment was to
interrupt prescription. He is amply compensated for his effort by the award of

FIVE THOUSAND ($5,000.00) DOLLARS plus filing fee.

SIGNED this J Er of Ok. ‘1992. Gretna, Louisiana.

PORTO00000170


1694

D7RLPs7h BS 77

PlaincifE testified that in December of 1981 he looked at unit 202-
and placed ONE EUWDRED AND NO/100 ($100.00) DOLLARS down to hold the unit.
‘Then on December 21 he executed P-7 and P-8. He testified that Zehentuer
cold him he had co pay TH) THOUSAND AND NO/100 (42,000.00) DOLLARS in. January
and TWO TROUSAND AND NO/100 ($2,000.00) more when he goved in. Plaintiff
affirmed that in Harch of 1982 Zehentner, then, approached him regarding
payment in full of che purchase price. On Harch 23, 1982, plaintiff gave
Henderson a check for the purchase price and executed F-10. He testified
that he, at no tige, read che document and thatnetther Henderson nor
Zehentner asked if he understood what they meant. He further cestified that
she never said the check was going to the developer/ower.

Both Henderson and Zehentner cestified that chey have never been {uvolved
im this type of transaction before. Although Henderson testified thac she
told plaintiff chat she was giving the money to the developer/omner, the

court chooses to believe plaintiff's tastimony thar she did not, and finds

Egudin to be the more credible witness.
Henderson also cescified chat she did not chink it her concern whether
the property was aorcgaged or nor.
Pierre Villere testified chat Zehentner knev there was a gortgage on the

Property when she sold unit 202.

‘The offending clauses are contained in Section 1. A. of the contracts.

+n Exhibit @A, che contract reads in pertinent part:

A. “Upon Seller's acceptance of Purchaser's offer, Purchaser will
deposit with Seller an amount of $2,280.47 - TWO THOUSAND TWO
EIMORED EIGHTY DOLLARS AND 47 CEMIS. This deposit shall be placed in
crow by Seller im any Bank in the New Orleans a1

Paragraph 1. A. reads in pertinent part im Exhibie 10:

"Upon Seller's seceptance of Purchaser's offer; Purchaser will deposit

w4th Seller cash in tbe amount of $45,609.50 FORTT-PIVE THOUSAND 1X

BONDRED WINE DOLLARS a0 FIFTY CENTS."

Tha sentence statiog: "This deposit shall be placed in escrow by Sellar
(4 any Bank..." £3 specifically deleted im Exhibie 10. The court finds chat
neither Zehentner nor anderson poiated out chis deletion in che contract.

The court feels that Henderson just blindly curned over pleincift's
check, naver inquiriag as to why ONE GUNDRED (1002) PERCENT of the purchase
price was being required from plaintif, che only person required to pay tn
edvance the full anount. She vas coupletely unconcerned about how the
caretaker of che goney vould keep safe these funds. Uer behavior was at best {

unprofessional and clearly a violation of LSA-R.S. 37:1455.

aa Bye
portovddddizs

oma


WITNESSES:

1819

WITNESS INDEX

PAGE NO.

PORTO00000626


1613

Resolution: Supreme Court issued a TRO and remanded to lower court. At
the request of the Chief Justice and all interested parties, we have deferred
further proceedings pending resolution by the legislature. The Indigent
Defender Board has stated that they will voluntarily dismiss this suit within
the next 30 days.

ustus wisi t
#90-4667 U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 13:994(B)(1),(2),(3). This concerned a
Louisiana statute which assessed a 2% fee on bail bonds. All judges were
sued as nominal parties in their official capacity. This is virtually the same
claim as Sierra, et al v. State of Louisiana, Governor Roemer, et al, except

it was filed in Federal court.

Injunction granted, statute declared unconstitutional.

t isi ve al
#405-429, 24th Judicial District Court
All judges were sued as nominal parties in their official capacity.
Constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 13:994(8)(1),(2),(3). Post Augustus ruling,
parties petitioned in state court for refunds of the fees collected to date.
Refunds denied by the trial and appellate courts. The Louisiana Supreme
Court denied plaintiffs’ writs on June 24, 1994.

Judicial Dis
# 89-3535, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

All judges were sued in their official and individual capacity. Petitioners,
Shurmaine DeGrange and Ida Williams alleged discrimination. Both
petitioners were former employees of the late Judge Lionel Collins. After
his death, De Grange, his former law clerk, alleged she was not hired as a
hearing officer in Domestic Court because of discrimination. Ida Williams,
his former secretary, alleged discrimination because her services were not
retained by the newly elected judge of the division.

33

PoRTOOG000048


ao

1655

Appellant, Thomas Cerullo, intervened in this action for
damages to protect his rights under a contingency fee contract
with the plaintifé, The trial court avarded him $5,000.00 on a
quantum meruit basis for professional services rendered. Mr.
Cerullo brings this appeal seeking review of the adequacy of the
amount awarded and requesting additional funds for reimbursement
of outstanding advances for medical expenses and costs related to

the case.
In January, 1984, Polly Watts, the minor daughter of Judith

Watts, was injured when she fell in a dressing room of the J.c.
Penney store on Lapalco Boulevard in Jefferson Parish, Judith
Watts employed Thomas Cerullo to assert the claim. Ms. Watts
aigned a contingency fea contract with Mr. Cerullo and suit was
filed against J.C. Penney and its insurer, Liberty Mutual

Insurance Company on January 25, 1985.

PORTOOOGOG90


1576

ooanyee asses tet
woe - a ‘

woe Ww

‘28 YOUR ASSOCIATION RECORD
‘a, koh lst 18 yours, have you been an officer or a member or made a conitbuton to an organization deccated tothe
lant overtrow ofthe Untied Biaias Goverement and wtich engages in egal actives 10 that and, knowing tht the
‘organization engages In such eateties with he apecic tent to frfer such aces?
bi. Tee et Eye a Row compan nay 0 ee vo overthrow tha United Salas
Goverment by force? you anwored "Yes" fe a arb, explain the space below:

ox
‘estons and any information you wou keto aa Here op sce ned ha ais pode, gk oe) 0 ae ‘Sat
ach shoot wih your name end Soc Seculy Numb, Beare wach enswo, ety the number oft

Za SARS PRR BT OA wy TEL a To a an NT HY
‘complet and soctrae, end then sgn and date the flowing certaton ard sign and date the release on pago 10. Nyov tach an SF 173,
Sontcaen for Fer Etopers ed srt fs oped ard ft oy Clomton neds he SF 17 idle we ae.
fertification That My Answers Are True
{ read each question askad of me and understood each question. My statements on this form, and any aitachments to this
form, are tue, complete, and correct fo the best of my knowiedge and bellef and are made in good faith. | understand that
orm can be punished by ine or Impdsonment o bth.

PoRTOOCO00011


1569

Qo07

ST

1317 Nurser;

JAttorney (Partner)
ear Cre foo

Metairie ei igi hi S509 833-52;

cy

3445 N. Causeway Blvd.

[Taare Rae
(594) a3

lattorney (Partner)

Tap ar
$504) 363-55:

ee J
voit 5% |

Regie ie 6 | eaverde, porteos
139 Huey P. Long Ave.
Senna ag ania RITTER ——]

ERT TNR Sea RRA OT BS EIT
Marion Bdvards Greta Courthouse~ ch

139 fuey P- Lone Age re

SSE ane Binal a WSO IS I

Marton Edvarde Gretns: Goprthouss sane Sth Tit

FRE TRS TTT

your Social Security Number befora going to the next page

“7

PorTecouaa0n sit


1832

PD-200e (Rev. 11-15-43)

TTAAHQ? oF
Continoation of FD-S02 of _ GABRIEL THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. .0n__7/6 & 7/8/%ye__4
Associations, American Judicature Society, Louisiana District
Attorney’s Association, 4th and Sth Circuit Judges Association,

Chateau Golf and Country Club, and St. Clement of Rome Men’s
Club. PORTEOUS has held the office of President of the 4th and
Sth Circuit Judges Association within the last five years but
does not currently hold that position. PORTEOUS advised that st.
Clement is the church which he attends. He said that within the
church there is a women’s and men’s club which have different
function: the church.

PORTEOUS advised that sometime between 1979 and 1982,
he was a member of the Mardi Gras kreve of CAESAR for two years.
The Mardi Gras krewe is an organization which sponsors a parade
and other festivities during Mardi Gras. He advised that this
was an all-male kreve at the tine, but he is not sure what its
membership consists of currently. PORTEOUS did not hold an
office in this organization.

PORTEOUS advised that he has not written any articles
for publication or made any major speeches. He said that he
gives a presentatior Jefferson Bar Association on
topics such as conflicts of interest and medical malpractice. He
has given presentations to the Louisiana. Bar Association and the
Louisiana Judicial College as well. These presentations consist
of an outline, a short synopsis, and case examples for the
continuing legal education of these organizations’ members.

PORTEOUS said that he has been taking out student loans
for his son through a "Parent-Plus" Program at FIRST NATIONAL
BANK OF COMMERCE (FNBC), New Orleans, each semester. Repayment
of these loans had been deferred until his son’s graduation until
recently. PORTEOUS advised that on March 7, 1994, he received
his first notice that payment on the loan was due. By this time,
it was overdue. In April, 1994, he received forms to fill out
for deferment of payment until his son’s graduation. He filled
the forms out, and the school signed them on April 14, 1994. On

loan. On May 25,
1994, he sent the lending institution a request for forbearance
on the debt because of the confusion over eligibility for
deferment. PORTEOUS then paid $96.83 to FNBC which covered
accrued interest and, on June 28, 1994, commenced making payments
as scheduled. PORTEOUS said this loan’is now current.

oe


1718

In Light of ehis cestizony, the Court avards Aubtacll Hiding the
nsum ef THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND XO/100 (535,000.00) DOLLARS for loss of
consortiua claim.

The Covet Curcher avarde Rubinell Hiddian, as provisional adainiscraccix
of che estate of Paul Kidding che sum of THO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND
N0/100_($250,000.00) DOULARS as generat damages for cha physical and
ental pain Nr. Midding suffered for five years prior to his death.

Since 2 elaim’of presertption has been raised by defendanc,
che Coure must also cule on chat exception. The Court Einds the
exception of prescription to be vichouc meric. The Court believes chac
if was noe uncil April 15, 1986, chat the Hiddings vere made aware that
there vas permanent nerve damage and chat plainciff would never tegain
bladder or.bovel control. The conplaint vas filed with che Comisstoner of
Insurance againse,Dr. Willians in December, 1986. This vas vell vichin
fone year. from che date they discovered chat Hr. Hidding's bladder and
Dowel conditions vere pecmanenc.

Accordingly, the Coure denies che defendant's exception of

prescription. *,
Grecna, Louisiana, amis _ 7G ee of July, 1990,

PORTO00000153


1853

at the request of BBU, Judge A signed another bail order releasing the same defendant on an
58,000.00 commercial bond and a $22,000.00 personal surety bond.

e. _ InSeptember 2001, a BBU employee called Judge A conceming a bond for
a defendant. The BBU employee told Judge A. that the defendant could afford a $5,000.00
commercial bond. Judge A set the bond that BBU requested, and the defendant was released later
that evening.

£ Onor about October 19, 2001, Bail Bondsman #1 and Judge A played golf
together. During the golf game, a BBU employee called Bail Bondsman #1 to ask if Judge A would
sign several bonds. Later that day, Judge A set a $125,000.00 commercial bond and a $396,500.00
personal surety bond for one defendant and a $10,000.00 commercial bond and a $10,000.00
personal surety bond for another defendant.

8. OnOctober 21,2001, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III told Bail Bondsman #1,
“[ know we wrote a lot of freaking bail.” Bail Bondsman #1 told LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, IIT,
“Friday out on the golf course with the judge [Judge A], I did about $250,000.00 for the uh, uh,
Gretna house.” Later in the conversation, Bail Bondsman #1 and LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, UI
discussed giving Judge A cash but writing on the envelope “[Judge A] Campaign Fund.” Although
LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, IJ stated that acash gift was “completely legal,” he further stated, “We

need to watch . . . what we say on the phone ‘cause we're saying, saying, ah, . .. I'm more worried

about the office phone but maybe mine to. ...” Bail Bondsman #1 then stated, “. . . what we
saying, there ain’t nothing wrong, I just want to make sure I can give cash. If aman asks for cash
forhis fundraiser, I want to give cash ....” LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, II and Bail Bondsman #2
further discussed giving “five.”

h.  OnOctober 22, 2001, at the direction of LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, I, Bail
Bondsman #1 gave Judge A $5,000.00 in cash. On October 23, 2001, Judge A deposited $1,500.00

in cash into his personal bank account. On October 31, 2001, Judge A deposited $720.00 in ‘cash

into his personal bank account,


1610

be interpreted as judicial activism. When we declare a law unconstitutional
and unenforceable that may be interpreted by some as interfering with the
legislative function. However, such action is part of our duty and
responsibility and is far different from actually legislating.

When we deal with individual grievances, we must'be ever mindful
to follow judicial precedent and constitutional interpretation. The personal
feelings of a judge should never replace sound, established judicial precedent
and constitutional interpretation. In instructing juries, I always remind them
that “your decision must not be based on bias, prejudice, sympathy or public
opinion." We in the judiciary must be ever mindful of this guideline when
we are the trier of the facts.

Once a matter is before a court on a trial on the merits, the judiciary’s
duty is to render our decision solely based on the law and evidence. Prior
to trial, a judge may be called upon to counsel or intervene as an unbiased
peacemaker, encouraging the parties to be open minded and understanding.

If we attempt to go beyond our role, we may in fact infringe on areas
reserved to the other branches of government. If we attempt to do less, we

will not be adhering to our oaths and weakening the judicial branch of
government. It is always a careful balance.

30

PORTOGO000045


1729

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 306-035 DIVISION "A"

JUDY WATTS ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, POLLY WATTS
VERSUS
J.C. PENNEY CO. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

FILED:

DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGMENT
‘This matter came for hearing on a trial on the merits on the Sth day of
April and the 14th day of May, 1992, on an Intervention of Thomas Cerullo,
Attorney at Law.
PRESENT:
PATRICK SANDERS

Attorney for Thomas Cerullo, intervenor

DANIEL J, MARKEY, JR.
Attorney for Lawrence J. Hand, Defendant in Intervention

Intervention into the case was filed by Thomas Cerullo, attorney at law,
seeking apportionment of FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND ($45,000.00) DOLLARS of
attorneys’ fees which was escrowed from the settlement of the principle claim
in this lawsuit.

The Cour, after hearing the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments
and memoranda of law furnished by counsel, considering the law and evidence

to be, for the written reasons attached hereto, as follows:

IT 1S ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment
herein apportioning the escrowed portion of the attorneys’ fees as follows:

THOMAS CERULLO, Intervenor, is awarded the sum of FIVE THOUSAND
($5,000.00) DOLLARS.

LAWRENCE J. HAND, Defendant in Intervention, is awarded the balance

PORTOOO000164


Federal Bureau of Investigation as part of my background
investigation.

GIPjr/rd

Enclosures

1641

Septeuber 29, 1994
Page 2

Sincerely,

PORTO00000076


1650

its first and J.N.O.V. judgments, the court disregarded
this assumption of risk finding, concluding that La. C.c.
art. 2323 more properly applied to assign degrees of fault.
In essence, then, the court determined that the finding
as to assumption of risk was legally irrelevant.

The trial court based its conclusion on what

we consider dicta in Bell _v. Jet Wheel Blast, 462 So.24

166 (La. 198S) that indicates:

In those types of cases in which
comparative fault principles may be
applied, the principles of article
2323 and its predecessors should be
applied by analegy so that the claim .
for damages recoverable shall be reduced
in proportion ‘to the degree or percentage
of negligence attribut to the person
suffering the injury, death or loss.

. . Purthermore, the adoption of
a system of comparative fault should,
where it applies, entail the merger
of the defenses Of misuse and assumption
of risk into the general scheme of
assessment of liability in ‘proportion
to fault.

Ta. at 172.
Our jurisprudence states that “The elements of

the defense of assumption of the risk are: (1) that the
plaintiff had knowledge of the danger; (2) that he understood

and appreciated the risk therefrom; and (3) that he voluntarily
ww Golf

exposed himself to sucti risk." Fritscher v. Chat

& Country Club, 453 So.24 964, 967 (La. App. Sth Cir. 1984),
writ denied, 460 So.2d 604 (La. 1984). See also Beck vs
Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 467 $0.24 1318, 1321 (La. App. 5th

Cir. 1985). Here, it appears that Stark had been drinking,
which might well have affected his knowledge of danger

or his appreciation of that danger. Moreover, the testimony
without exception indicates that Stark's approaching the

car and his behavior thereafter were unplanned and unanticipated.

PORTOOO00008S


1565

. US. Department of Justice
\ Office of Legislative Affairs

Office ofthe Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530

June 18, 2009»

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr:
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

‘This responds to the Committee’s letter, dated March 31, 2009, which requested documents
and other information relating to the Department's referral to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit pertaining to Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jt.

__ Enclosed are 223 pages of records pertaining to the Senate confirmation of Judge Porteous,
including his questionnaires and other material he supplied to the FBL. Social Security numbers
have been redacted from these documents in order to protect individual privacy interests.
Nonietheless, these records implicate substantial individual privacy interests and, accordingly, we
request that you consult with the Department prior to disclosing their contents outside of the
Committee.

‘The FBI is working to process additional documents responsive to your request and we will
supplement this response as soon as they become available. Please do not hesitate to contact us if
you would like additional assistance with this or any other matter.

Sincerely,
. Ronald Weich
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Lamar S. Smith
Ranking Minority Member
— HP Exhibit 69(a)

duaoencaass Ze
iat PD


1676

I was first elected without opposition in 1984 for the term to commence
January 1, 1985. At the request of the Louisiana Supreme Court, because
the Division "A" seat was vacant, I was appointed to sit as the Ad Hoc
Judge, effective August 24, 1984, I was re-elected without opposition in
1990 for the term commencing January 1, 1991.

The 24th Judicial District Court is a state trial court of general civil and
criminal jurisdiction. However, juvenile proceedings and traffic violations
are not included in our jurisdiction, other specific courts dispose of these
two areas.

13. Attach ten of the most significant opinions you have written and give the
citations if the opinions were reported, as well as citations to any appellate
review of such opinions. As to each case for which an opinion is submitted,
state the name, address and telephone number of counsel of each of the

parties.
See attachment (my written trial court judgments and reasons)

Appellate cites and attorneys’ names, addresses and telephone numbers are
as follows:

(ly) is inium, et al., 528 So.2d 1043, La

App 5 Cir., June 1988)

Leonard Levenson
427 Gravier. St.
New Orleans, LA
(504)586-0066

John E. Seago
8126 One Calais Ave., Suite 2C
‘Baton Rouge, LA-70809

(504) 766-5805

Joseph F. D’Aquin, Ill
Christopher E. Lawler

PORTOOO000111


1750

Viewing the evidence most favorable
to the party against whom the motion .
is made, the court finds that defendant
failed to prove that plaintiff was
in any way at fault in becoming an
“outrider" on the vehicle, voluntarily.
All evidence preponderates to the finding .
that plaintiff found himselé in a position
of imminent peril without sufficient
time to consider and weigh all circumstances
or the best means that may be adopted
to avoid the impending danger.

There was no evidence presented
which could substantiate a finding
-that the emergency was brought about
by any alleged fault on the part of
Stanton J. Stark.

Tim Talbot testified that when Stanton
got to the car the lights and engine .
Were off. Norman McKay testified that
the car was stopped when Stanton was
on the threshold.

It is clear from the testimony of
those present who could recall the
particulars of how Stanton came to
be on the auto that Stanton was positioned
between ox/on the threshold and the
open car door when the vehicle began
to move. The driver did not use reasonable
care in taking on its passenger; Stanton
had every right to assume that the
vehicle would not move until he was
safely away or inside the vehicle.

It {s also clear that once the vehicle
aid pull forward Stanton was on the
horns of a dilemma . . . [from which]
only hindsight and cool reflection
could have possibly provided a safe
escape. The law clearly does not hola
plaintiff to this standard of conduct.
See Carter v.City Parish Government(,]
423 So 1982

nee

It is clear from the evidence ‘that
at the beginning of the scenario Stanton
Stark was nothing more than a pedestrian,
resting on the Douglas vehicle while
observing the activity of the occupants.
Stanton then involuntarily became an
“outrider" on the vehicle because of
the sudden and unexpected movement
of the car.

The court is of the opinion that
Stanton had every legal right to assume

PORTOOO000185


1699

Pursuant to the verdict of the jury finding,
Stanton Stark S6x fault
‘Stephen Douglas 4aZ fault

and awarding,

Hrs. Lynn Stark $26,333.00
John R. Stack . $21,750.00,

the court makes the folloving calculations:
Hrs. Lynn Stark $26,333.00 X 44% = $11,586.52
John R. Stark $21,750.00 X 44% = $ 9,570.00
Hes. Lynn Stark $11,586.52

z$,000.00 (4 of $10,000.00 credit,
previously paid by State Farm)
$ 6,586.52

John R. Stark $ 9,570.00
25,000.00 (4 of $10,000,00 credit,
previously paid by State Farm)
$ 4,570.00
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUOGED AND DECREED that said verdict be and it is
haceby made the judgment of this court and accordingly the defendant, Government
Employees Insurance Company, is hereby condemned to pay to plaintiff, Hes. Lynn
Stark, the sum of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNORED BIGHTY-SIX AND 52/100 ($6,586.52)
DOLLARS and to plaintiff, John R. Stark, the sunof FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
SEVENTY AND NO/100 ($4,570.00) DOLLARS with legal {aterest from date of
judicial demand.
JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED AND SIGNED this 3” Alay of April, 1985, at

Gretna, Louisiana. 4

PORTOOG000134


1727

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 411-405, . DIMISION “ATM
BETTY ANN DUNN
VERSUS

KEITH L. KREUTZIGER, D,0.S.,.M.0. AND OCHSNER
FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

FILED:
DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGMENT

This matter came for hearing on the 5th day of March, 1993, on an
exception of prescription and taken under advisement.
PRESENT:

CHARLES F. GAY, JR.
Attorney for DEFENDANTS

MARGARET HAMMOND
Attorney for PLAINTIFF

The Court, after hearing the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments
and memoranda of law furnished by counsel, considering the law and evidence
to be in favor of the exceptor for the following reasons, to wit:

This is an exception of prescription for alleged acts of medical malpractice
which took place on July 15, 1987, when Dr. Kreutziger preformed nasal
surgery on Betty Dunn. Dr. Kreutziger thought the surgery was unsuccessful
and that a revision was clearly necessary. This was verified when plaintiff
raceived a second opinion by Dr. Jack Anderson on October 12, 1987; by a
third opinion by Dr. Calvin Johnson on November 2, 1987; and by a fourth
opinion of Or, Joseph Gautreaux on January 26th, 1988.

‘The Court finds that the alleged injury was discovered possibly as early
as October, 1987, and most certainly by January 26, 1988, when four
physicians had advised Ms.Dunn that she would need revision surgery. It was
clear at that time that surgery would have to be repeated and that the damages

she had suffered, nasal deformity and difficulty breathing, were a result of the

PORTO00G00162


1568

oe2s/e4 arise & Boos

De my i)

iS
“TT” Your enptovmenr Actes
mploymet

Fil yur vos, belong with he prevent (1) and working backward 15 yaara, INCLUDE:
al hlbdew werk + pal work + elarplayment
“al partie wrk . + active mtr ty +l pores of unemployment
(WITHE NUMBERED ACTIVITY SECTION USE ONE OF THESE CODES IN THE CODE BLOCK:
1 Ade wlan cry stators 5 Stal Govaranent Wen. 7 -Unereoymart Ene gue 9 Oar
5: USERS Con HAS: Cpidoed Cups ¢- -Setcenglorat tr Fea Sonar Eo -
4 Other Feder onploynert ‘bosiese gure ander nama vector net Fedaral agency
‘St pereon wo can wa

FOR EACH ACTIVITY SECTION, prove ntormaton requested. For example, you had worked at XY Plumbing Ia Denver, CO, for 3
‘separate pevods of time, you would eater dates and infomation cancamng he most recantpedod of employment fest, anc prowde dates,
rst the i af employment the appropriate Blocks below that formation, (Fer eater

are eeaas
04) 568-574

etna Courthouse-Annex Bldg. Gretna 604)364-385¢
SSE Sica —— a He
ugh Collins 301 Loyola Ave. New Orleans : 504) 568-574
BRET PaO OFT SAU ASTNEY IN COLTON GOTTA SHEET WEE ATW HORT

roar Fanon TERT "Nae RE TET SES TR

EMA ags3boy

cant Distt
Courthouse-Amex Bldg, Sth Fis oxssn aletitnts | 509 268-102
aan aie i
SR Na TT Ta ESTST ea ea ae 7
Jotn Manoulides, District _Attorne loréena Ale TOURER] G00 368-102
avin ano OP ORME RETF HEATON CORTON SE TOR
aren To FSG TERT SiR Zz
2 lozd

tte [ou Poston Te

37, Jeffercon Righvay,

Baa NT Seal in aa I TS
fayor Carlo Ferrara

x ATE TST

jee your Guvier Security Nomber before going to the next page



1759

7

We find that interpretation of the legislative intent to be
consistent with the changes made in the 1989 amendments to LsA-
R.S. 372218 and LSA-R.S. 9:5001. Thus, we find the trial court’s
Judgment should be amended to award Mr. Carullo reimbursement of
advances wade by him in furtherance of Ms. Watts Litigation. we
do not find, nor has Mr. Cerullo suggested, jurisprudential
support for an award of funds secured but not paid to medical
providers.

For the foregoing reasons ths judgment of the trial court is

amended to award Mr. Cerullo the sum of $1244.09 for

reimbursement of funds advanced. Mr. Hand‘s award is decreased

by $1,244.00. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AMENDED AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED

PORTO00000194


1779

Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense
Function, Sec.4.1(tentative draft 1970). The United States

Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit in Goodwin v. Balkcom,

684 F.2d 794 (1982) held that “At the heart of effective
representation is the independent duty to investigate and
prepare. Counsel have a duty to interview potential
witnesses and make an independent examination of the facts,
circumstances, pleadings and laws involved." Id. at p.80S.

The United States Supreme Court stated in Strickland, 104

S.Ct. at 2066, "In other words, counsel has a duty to make
reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision
that makes particular investigations unnecessary." A review
of the record and all transcripts demonstrates that defense
counsel for Lane Nelson made practically no efforts to
develop information which would have been helpful to the
defendant at the sentencing phase of his trial.

Mr. Samuel Stephens testified at the evidentiary
hearing that the only experts he intended to use at the
sentencing phase of the trial were the two court-eppointed
psychiatrists. Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11,
1986, p.124, lines 27-28; p.125, lines 3-5. Yet, defense
counsel did not have Dr. Richoux under a continuing
subpoena. Evidentiary hearing transcript, Novenber 11,
1986, p.i26, lines 22-26.

Prior to the trial of the defendant there were two
sanity hearings held-in this matter in accordance with —
C.cr.P. Art. 650 since the defendant had entered a combined
plea of “not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity".
On November 5, 1981 a sanity hearing was held to determine
defendant's mental capacity at that time to assist his
counsel in the trial of this matter. On Novémber 12, 1981 a
sanity hearing was held to determine the defendant's mental
of the time of the offense.

condition
When Dr. Richoux was unavailable for the sentencing

Phase of defendant's trial, Mr. Samuel Stephens read the

=20-

PORTOO0000214


1677

4640 Rye St.

Metairie, LA 70006

(504)454-6808

(2) Inthe Matter of the Wrongful Death of Stanton J. Stark, #No. 86-CA-34

(La. App. 5 Cir., June, 1986) (Not designated for publication)

W. Paul Andersson
1100 Poydras St.
New Orleans, LA
($04)585-7500

Edward M. Gordon, II
2901 N. Causeway Blvd.
Metairie, LA
(504)832-4006

John R. Stark
(deceased)

@) ,» 519 So.2d 1187, (La.

Edgar Carlsen v. Mehaffey & Daigle, Inc,, et al.,
App. 5 Cir., Jan. 1988); 522 So.2d 1091, (La. 1988)

A. Remy Fransen, Jr.
814 Howard Ave.
New Orleans, LA
(504)522-1188

Stephen N. Elliott
1615 Metairie Road
Metairie, LA 70005
(504)834-2612

‘Robert M. Jounstor
Pan American Life Ctr.
601 Poydras St.

Suite 2490

New Orleans, LA 70130

16

PORTQ00000112


1598

Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 456-8692

Defense Counsels:
Robert Broussard (deceased)
Roy Price (deceased)

5. isi i
Criminal # 80-1980, 81-1003, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "G", Judge Herbert Gautreaux
Citation: 468 So.2d 1142, (La. May,1985); 475 So.2d 314, (La. Sept.,1985)

Jury Trial, November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6th, 1981.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Second Degree Murder and
Aggravated Battery. The defendant in this case was a New Orleans policeman.
Major question concerning use of certain statements and hypnotic procedures used
on the yictim/wife by the police. I handled this matter from the initial motion to.
reduce the bond. This was critical because at this stage we were able to positively
connect the defendant with the weapon. Trial preparation was very time consuming
because out of state trips were required to secure the presence of a witness. An
appearance before a District Court Judge in Annapolis was required to secure the
immediate apprebension and transportation of the witness to Louisiana, along with
returning this witness to Annapolis.

Final Disposition: Jury Verdict - Guilty as charged; Affirmed.

Co-Counsel for State:

Assistant District Attorney Gordon Konrad
P.O. Box 10890

Jefferson, LA 70181 /or

3900 River Rd., Suite 6

Jefferson, LA 70121

(504) 831-9985

18

PORTOO0000033


1781

present evidence favorable to the defendant so the jary
would not sentence him to death.

Defense counsel failed to present mitigating evidence
in accordance with La.c.cr.P. Art. 905.5, Mitigating
Circumstances. sections a, b, and e apply to the case at

bar,

(a) The offender has no significant
prior history of criminal activity;

(b) The offense was committed while the
offender was under the influence of
extreme mental or emotional disturbance;

fe) At the time of the offense the
capacity of the offender to appreciate
the criminality of his conduct or to
conform his conduct to the requirements
of law was impaired as a result of
mental disease or defect or intoxication;

Defendant, Lane Nelson has met the first stage of the

Strickland test - that counsel's performance was deficient

and his errors were so serious that counsel was not
functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth

Amendment, The second stage of the Strickland test is that

the defendant must show that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense. “The defendant must show that there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. A reasonable probability is a
Probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome." Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. When a defendant

challenges the death-sentence, such as Lane Nelson is in
this case, “the question is whether there is a reasonable
Probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer -
including an appellate court, to the extent it independently
reweighs the evidence ~ would have concluded that the
balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not

warrant death." Strickland; 104 $.ct. at 2069.

At the evidentiary hearing Dr. Shraberg explained in
detail how alcohol intoxication affects the mental

Functioning of individuals. He discussed that intoxication

PORTOO00000216


1657

3
fourteen at the tine and he wanted to know the full extent of her
injuries before he settled the matter.

Mr. Cerullo introduced testimony from Or. Rick Saluga, a
chiropractor who treated Polly Watts for about three weeks. Dr.
saluga verified that, considering travel time, eight to ten hours
would ba a fair estimate of tine spent by Mr. Cerullo in
consultation. Donald Klein, an attorney, testified that Mr.
Cerullo epent about ten hours discussing the matter with him.

‘The record further shows that Mr. Cerulle wrote eight
letters to Liberty Matual during the three years he represented

Me. Watts, The last letter, writtan in March, 1986 contained a

demand for $175,000.00 to settle the claim, That demand wi

rejected by the insurance company and a counter offer of
$15,000.00 was made in August, 1986. ‘The matter apparently did
not proceed beyond that, and in January of 1987 Mr. Cerullo was
discharged.

Ma. Watts testified that she had few meetings with Mr.
cerullo, and that these meetings usually tock place outside of
his office. She complained that Mr. Cerullo vas uncompunicative
and that the limited communications were fraught with
misrepresentations.

When a party to a contingency f
attorney before the fee is earned, the attorney’s mandate is

contract discharges his

revoked and the contract {s dissolved. quantum meruit then
becomes the proper basis for recovery. Saucier v. Hnyes Dairy
Products, Inc., 373 So.24 102 (La.1973); Keys_v. Mercy Hosp, of
New orlenns, 537 So.2d 1223 (La.App. 4th cir.1989). In Toups ve
Breinis, 608 So.2d 246, 247 (La.App. Sth Cir.1992), this court
stated:

Under Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.,
373 So,2d 102 (La,1979}, the attorney fee of
a discharged attorney is to be apportioned
according to the respective services and
contributions of the attorney’s work
perforned and other relevant factors as set
forth in Rule 1.5 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct; which provides in
pertinent part:

(a) A lawyer’s tea shall be
Feasonable. The factors to be

PORTOGOOBO092


1767

SLAIN Ir
In defendant's second claim he contends that the State
was improperly allowed to exercise a peremptory challenge
against a juror who had already been sworn in. This issue
was fully litigated on appeal and found to be without merit.

State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d $10, at p.515(La.1984).

Accordingly, this Court finds the defendant's second claim
without merit.
CLAIM 127

Defendant's third claim is that the trial court
interfered with the voir dire interrogation of the jury.

As an example, defendant cites the incident concerning
juror LaCrouts. Juror LaCrouts informed the Court that if
the defendant were convicted she would not be able to
consider imposing the death penalty upon him. [t is
defendant's contention that following this remark by the
juror, the Court restricted defense counsel's examination of
the juror and immediately excused the juror. A review of
the record reveals that the Court allowed defense counsel to
pursue questioning juror LaCrouts in order to determine the
reasons why she was unable to consider imposing the death
penalty, ‘Trial transcript, January 5, 1982, pgs. 243-247. At
one point the Court asked, "Does anybody wish to ask any
questions?" Trial transcript, January 5, 1982, p.246, lines
9-10.

Defendant also asserts that there were several other
occasions, similar to the incident with juror LaCrouts in
which the trial court restricted the scope of examination of
the jurors. A thorough review of the record shows that this
claim is unsubstantiated.

Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's third claim
without. merit.

CLAIM Iv

In defendant's fourth claim he asserts that he was
denied a faix and impartial jury because the potential
jurors were not individually sequestered during voir dire
examination. It is defendant's contention that since the

-8-

PORTO00000202


1652

Viewing the evidence most favorable
to the party against whom the motion
is made, the court finds that defendant
failed to prove that plaintiff was
in any way at fault in becoming an
“outrider” on the vehicle, voluntarily.
All evidence preponderates to the finding
that plaintiff found himself in a position
of imminent peril without sufficient
time to consider and weigh all circumstances
or the best means that may be adopted
to avoid the impending danger.

There was no evidence presented
which could substantiate a finding
that the emergency was brought about
by any alleged fault on the part of
Stanton J. Stark.

Tim Talbot testified that when Stanton
got to the car the lights and engine .
were off. Nozman McKay testified that
the car was stopped when Stanton was
on the threshold.

It is clear from the testimony of
those present who could recall the
particulars of how Stanton came to
be on the auto that Stanton was positioned
between or/on the threshold and the
open car door when the vehicle began
to move. The driver did not use reasonable
caxe in taking on its passenger; Stanton
had every right to assume that the
vehicle would not move until he was
safely away or inside the vehicle.

It is also clear that once the vehicle

did poll forward Stanton was on the

horns of a dilemma . . . [from which]

only hindsight and cool reflection

could have possibly provided a safe
escape. The law clearly does not hold
intiff to this standard of conduct.

See Carter v. City Parish Government, ]

423 S

sae

It is clear from the evidence that
at the beginning of the scenario Stanton
Stark was nothing more than a pedestrian,
resting on the Douglas vehicle while
observing the activity of the occupants.
Stanton then involuntarily became an
“outrider" on the vehicle because of
the sudden and unexpected movement
of- the car.

The court is of the opinion that
Stanton had every legal right to assume

PORTOO0000087


Birth:
Legal Residence:
Marital status:

Education:

Bar:

Experience:

Office:

1580

G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.

December 15, 1946 New Orleans, Louisiana

Louisiana

Married Carmella Giardina Porteous
4 children

1964 - 1968 Louisiana State University
B.A. degree

1968 ~ 1971 Louisiana State University
Law School
J.D. degree

1971 Louisiana

1971 = 1973 state of Louisiana
Attorney General's Office
Special counsel

1973 - 1974 Edvards, Porteous & Amato
Partner

1973 - 1975 District Attorney's office
Parish of Jefferson
Chief Felony Complaint Div

1974 ~ 1976 Edwards, Porteous & Lee
Partner

1976 - 1980 Porteous, Lee & Mustakas
Partner

1980 - 1984 Porteous & Mustakas
Partner

1982 ~ 1984 City Attorney's office
city of Harahan
city attorney

1984 - present 24th Judicial District court

State of Louisiana
District Judge

Gretna Courthouse Annex Building
Second Floor, Room 200

Gretna, Louisiana 70053

504 364-3850

To be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana

PORTOOO00001S


1773

Cetendant cid not testify." Trial transcript, January 7,
1982, p.105, lines 11-13. ‘The preceeding charge which
was given’ to the jury in the instant case is proper.
Nowhere did the Court comment on defendant's zailure to
testify. Defendant was not prejudiced by this statement
made by the Court.

Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's ninth claim
without merit.

CLAIM x

In defendant's tenth claim he contends that he was
deprived of effective assistance of counsel.

‘The Court has chosen to address this claim in relation
to the tvo phases of trial: the guilt/innocence phase and
the sentencing phase.

A. The guilt/innocence phase

This Court has thoroughly reviewed the court record,
the trial transcript, and the transcript of the evidentiary
hearing to determine if the defendant vas deprived of
effective assistance of counsel according to the standard

set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland

Ys Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052(1984). A defendant has the

burden of proving that the ineffective assistance of counsel
which he alleges not only provided the possibility of
Prejudice, but that it worked to his actual and substantial
disadvantage in the outcomé of the case. Defendant has not
met this burden of proof in the instant case. .
Assuming arguendo, that minor errors were made by the

defense counsel during ‘the guilt/innocence phase, these

errors could have had only an insubstantial and
disignificant impact on the jury. Furthermore, defendant's
guilt was so irrefutably evident that an acquittal would

have been an unreasonable event based upon the entire

record.
Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's tenth claim as

xegarding the guilt/innocence phase in this case to be

without merit,

-~14-

PORTO00000208


1622

CHEDULE 4--IRAs, Keogh, Prot Shang & Other Vested Retroment Accounts Itpotenough spice, pleas atach separato

TREY | wvemeer [OES] coer [wnerwue | ARS Ren] “oS
Yate of ta, |G, Thonas Ret. Carmella Porteous 97,405 o (13715705)
mployees Porteous, Je aE
‘atizeaent a
‘Ysten_ rom seryict

Teall

SHEDULE 5 - Real Estate Owned - if not enough space, please altach separate schedulo,

‘Moressarere | x Ya | cosre | eee com | ARE
noneas are TREN NM OF TERE PEERS] woe | ce] Ao

rayrey De. Te Mrs. | 77
#Az*T P| soold-2. “rortzous Jt, {10s,000225,000 |94 000 fidetsey 9/2008) 9902.04 -aaar ae,
HER WHOLLY OMED FEAL ESTATE (eae or Commerc eoue joa

Rayon SAE

Tota %e
‘Your Porn of Marat Vain ae Dad fox Porton ol oem 8 .

1
{HEDULE 6 - Accounts Receivable, Mortgage Receivable & Noles Receivable - if ot enough space, plaase attach separate echedule,

DUE FROM case | Bees [a | we | SRST | Reem ‘couaraa,  PS

Total

HEDULE 7 - Oil and Gas intersts (lacuding General Partnership Interests) - not enough space, please attach separate schedule.

wnstreasetésore | orfiBlesr | GaSe [Meier GSovekt | - ese [ounce] SST aE

Tose Tota

‘HEDULE 8 - Notas Payable (Incuding a loans, active ines of crit dnd inactive ines of ered) - tyootenough spac, please
attach separate schedula,

Frreccracem] onneutvom wpxn Yererest] wanuwry |  OSSSuRDOR
Mor craorTon |I"foerortia)[ORUNEAMOUMT| — GALANGE ‘OxTE, ae acca eigen

zat WiC Tan ERSUS MENSUT é = junsecured

pokTeogaggas7.



1739

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 394-298 DIVISION
KENNETH POCHE AND SCOTT KEY
VERSUS

BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION AND WAGNER MARINE, INC.

FILED:

DEPUTY CLERK
REASONS FOR JUOGMEN

This matter concerns an action for rescission of sale and damages
involving the purchase of a Bayliner Trophy Convertible 2560 boat by the
plaintiffs. The defendants are Bayliner Marine Corporation, the manufacturer
of the vessel, and Wagner Marine, inc., the local dealer of the vessel. At the
conclusion of trial, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the action of
petitioners against Wagner Marine, Inc. and Wagnec's third party demand
against its insurer, reserving all actions and relief against the manufacturer,
Bayliner Marine Corporation.

The issue before the Court is whether plaintiffs are entitled to an award
of the sale price on account of a vice or defect in the vessel sold that would
render the vessel either absolutely useless or its use so inconvenient and
imperfect that it must be supposed that the. buyer would not have purchased
it had he know of the vice.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have carried their burden of proof in this
matter. The vessel exhibited unsatisfactory performance immediately after
purchase and the performance characteristics of the vessel provedunacceptable
for either pleasure or fishing use.

Plaintiffs purchased the boat from Wagner Marine in Aprit of 1988 for the

PORTOOO0000174


1856

£ In or about 1998, at the direction of LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III, aBBU

‘employee gave Deputy #2 $1,600.00 in cash so that Deputy#2 could purchase handguns for himself

and several other JPSO deputies.

g. Between 1998 and 2000, MARCOTTE purchased automobile tires for

Deputy #2.
h. Beginning on or about January 18, 1999 and continuing until the present,

LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, ILI and BBU employed the son of Deputy #3 in order to curry favor with

Deputy #3.
i. In 1999, atthe direction of LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III, a BBU employee

bought meals for Deputy #2 and several other deputies on numerous occasions at a restaurant on

Lapalco Boulevard.
Inor aboutDecember 2001, a BBU employee gave Deputy #2 $130.00 in cash

j.
to take several JPSO Deputies out for drinks at a restaurant in New Orleans.

k. On February 12, 2002, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III called Deputy #2 to
discuss MARCOTTE’s concem about competition from a former BBU employee. Deputy #2 told
LOUISM. MARCOTTE, Ill that he would tell the JPSO deputies not to accept anything from the
former BBU employee.

1. Beginningon February 20, 2002, and continuing until August 21,2002, BBU
paid for a cellular telephone for Deputy #3 at a total cost exceeding $700.00.

. m.  OnMarch 9, 2002, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III and Bail Bondsman #2 had
a conversation in which Bail Bondsman #2 explained that he had been paying Deputy #2 $100.00
aweek. Bail Bondsman #2 stated, “I have to go outside and tell you this. Thad to get, um, [Deputy

#2) ahundred dollars. That alright, huh?” LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III asked, “For what?” Bail
Bondsman #2 responded, “Because Lori told me to do it every week.”
n. Beginning in or about May 2000 and continuing through 2002, LOUIS M.

MARCOTTE, III paid JPSO Lieutenant Guy Maynard Crosby approximately $1,000.00 permonth

12


1664

Bachelor of Arts - Economics

Louisiana State University Law School 1968-1971
Baton Rouge, LA
Juris Doctor

List all courts in which you have been admitted to practice, with dates of
admission. Give the same information for administrative bodies which
require special admission to practice.

All Courts of Louisiana September 7, 1971
United States District Court, September 19,1972
Bastern-District of Louisiana

United States Supreme Court . April 18, 1977
United States Court of Appeals, Sth Circuit October 1, 1981

Describe chronologically your law practice and experience after your
graduation from law school and until you became a judge, including:

a. whether you served as clerk to a judge, and if so, the name of the
judge, the court, and the dates of the period you were a clerk,

No,
b. whether you practiced alone, and if so, the addresses and the dates.

No.

c. the dates, names and addresses of law firms or offices, companies or
governmental agencies with which you have been. connected, the
nature of your connection with each, and the names, addresses and
current telephone numbers for individuals who ‘have direct personal
knowledge about your work at such law firm, company or
government agency.

PoRTOGOON0099


ier

1753

Appellant, Thomas Corullo, intervened in this action for
damages to protect his rights under a contingency fee contract
with the plaintiff. the trial court awarded him $5,000.00 on a
quantum meruit basis for professional services rendered. Hr.
Cerullo brings this appeal seeking review of the adequacy of the
amount avarded and requesting additional funds for reimbursement
ef outstanding advancea for medical expenses and costs related to
the case.

In January, 1984, Polly Watts, the minor daughter of Judith
Watts, was injured when she fell in a dressing room of the J.C.
Penney store on Lapalco Boulevard in Jefferson Parish. Judith
Watts employed Thomas Cerullo to assert the claim. Ms. Watts
signed a contingency fee contract with Mr. Cerullo and suit was
filed against J.C. Penney and its insurer, Liberty Mutual

Insurance Company on January 25, 1985. _

PORTO00000188


1823

525

Misoeteal and Stacvtory Noted
meee
WUSCA § 3368; Act 1966.No. 3106 1.

2 Art 881, Amendment of sentence

‘A. Although the sentence imposed is legal in every
respect, the court may amend or change the sentence,
within the legal limits of its discretion, prior to the
beginning of execution of the-seatence..

‘B. After commencement of execution of sentence,
in felony cases in which the defendant bas been sen-
fenced 10 imprisonment without hard labor and in
misdemeanor casés, thé sentencing judge may reduce
the sentence or may amend the sentence to place the
defendant-on-supervised probation, If-a sentence is
reduced or nent, a copy of the minute entry

Telecting te od
Sitbe frsished f ta the-district aworney and the

law enforcement agency. Amended by Acts
mae aL

Official Revision Comment

(a) This article continues the rule of Art. $26 of
the-1928 Code of Criminal Procedure, that 2 legal

SENTENCING IN GENERAL

C.Cr.P. Art. 881.1

Sonal cai withos snbering te sentencing udp
to 2 substantial period of harassment and pressures.

The. shove, anicle. conforms with the district
Todges" recommendation.

() The arial cour's authority wo smend the sen
tence prior to. “the beginning of execution of the
sentence.” is limited by Art 516, which divests the
‘rial court of jurisdiction upon the estering of the
order of appeal. Certain exceptions are recognized
in AR. 916, and one of these is thar the tral court
‘retutsjuisdlecion to "Correct an Mepal sentence, or
reduce a legal sentence in accordance with Artide
9B" Under Arie 913B, the tal coure has
"utoiyto amend the serene wo gan cet for
aller a pur of be ce served the appeal,
‘whea the defendant was held without bail.

(e}-Since the authority to incresse a sentence
prior the bepinig of execution of te semeoee is

Ant. 526 of the 1928
ade concauedfesoguifon of

; -of-0 “plea bargaia”, In State v.
_ Mockosher, 20§ La. 434, 17 So.zd 575 (1944), the

Supreme Court-beld that where « defen

‘court and disriet arzommey, the court was powerless
‘to reconsider the penalty and increase the sentence
arigely imposed. The court reioned that the

FedRule 35 authorizes a reduction of sentence
within simy days after semtence & imposed without
any referent wo the begining of exciton A

was Diserict

had. surrendered, ” in ree
‘ura for the security of the light sentence, and that
those rights could not be taken away by a subsequent
‘cert of the cour’s general aethoriy to increase
the sentence prior 10 the beginning of its execution.

Historical and Staroory Notes

Soares:
Former RS. 9526; Acs 1966, No. 510. § 1,

y Art S811, Motion to reconsider sentence
A. (1) Within thirty days following the imposition
of sentence or within such longer period as the trial
court may set at sentence, the state or the defendant
may make“or file a motion to reconsider sentence.
(2) The motion shall be oral at the time of sentenc-

* ing or “tr-writing thereafter -and-shel~set forth the
specie grounds on which the motion if based.

B._lf'a motion is made or fled under Paragraph A

of this Article, the trial court-may-resentence the

dane ‘hie petideiiey of an appeal or the
commencement of execution of the sentence.

The trial court may deay 2 motion to reconsider

a contradictory hearing.
D. Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider
sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a
motion to reconsider sentence may be based, including
2 claim of exessiveness, shall preclude the state or the
defendant from raising an objection to the sentence of
from urging any ground not raised in the motion on
appeal or review. Added by Act 1991, No. 38, § 1, eff
Fan. 32. 1992

PORTOG0000672


1830

FD-S02e (hey. 11-15-43)

TIA-HQ- oF

continuation otPD-902 ot GABRIEL THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. .0n_7/6 & 7/8/9hye_2

PORTEOUS advised that from July, 1982, until August,
1984, he was employed part-time as a city attorney for the city
of Harahan, simultaneously working as a Jefferson Parish District
Attorney. ‘He advised that the law firm of EDWARDS, PORTEOUS, &
AMATO that he had been with beginning January, 1973, is the firm
that evolved into PORTEOUS & MUSTAKAS, of which he was a partner
until August, 1984. PORTEOUS said thi
with B&L ASSOCIATES from August, 1970, to May,
same time working part-time for BAKER’S.
basically "on call" for B&L ASSOCIATES to conduct interview
take statements.

PORTEOUS said that he does not really have a supervisor
currently but listed HUGH COLLINS on his application as COLLINS
is the judicial administrator for the State of Louisiana.

PORTEOUS said that he has no personal or business
credit 4 including but not limited to repossessions,
delinquent student loans, debts placed for collection, or
bankruptcy. He advised that he is current on all Federal, state,
and local tax obligations, including but not limited to income
taxes, Medicare taxes, Social Security taxes, and unemployment
taxes. PORTEOUS said that the only back payment of taxes he has
had to make was either in 1974, 1975, or 1976 when he was with
the firm EDWARDS, PORTEOUS & LEE. He advised that upon an
Revenue Service (IRS) audit, the firm was advised that
firm paid for filing fees could not be considered
, as the firm had indicated on their tax returns. The
firm paid the taxes on the difference of taxable income excluding
the filing fees as expensi

PORTEOUS stated that other than the civil suits listed
on the supplement to his SF-86, he has not been involved in any
civil suits as a plaintiff or defendant, to include divorce
has had no involvement in criminal matters
as a Suspect or subject or any criminal charge, arrest, or
wiction.

PORTEOUS said that he had not been denied employment or
been dismi: from employnent, to include the Federal sector.
PORTEOUS advised that he has had no contact with official repre-
sentatives of foreign countries.

on
S


1738
petitioners, Kenneth Poche and Scott Key, dismissing this claim with prejudice.
IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be
judgment in favor of third party defendant, Glens Falls Insurance Co. and
against third party patitioner, Wagner Marine Inc., dismissing this claim with

prejudice.

JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED, and SIGNED this day

ot ALG 1992, Gretna, Louisiana.

JUBGE
a ES

PORTOO0000173


1809

HE DEFENDANT:

THE COURT:

THE DEFENDANT:

THE COURT: - -

MR.

accepts your plea you do not have the
right to assert any allegations of defect,
such as:

One, an illegal arrest

Two, an illegal search an seizure

Three, an illegal confession

Four, an illegal lineup, and

Pive, the fact that the State might
not be able to prove such charge or that a
jury would find you guilty. Do you
understand that by pleading guilty

you are waiving or giving up these rights?

¥

Do you understand that by pleading
guilty you are telling this Court that you
have in fact committed the crime to which

you are pleading guilty?
Yes.

Hr. Tosh, there's a portion on here
for you to read and sign. You did both.
TOSE:

Tes, Your Bonor.

PORTOOQ000616


1643

“upauaya di ysuaquey 30 s8ze2ty134a9 Aluo ang nia 3u3
UL y203s panss} you a4e saaquay “Azsadoud alqeAouuL
HO a[qeaow 4o sazz4L}oes S3t 40 AUR Jo/pue qnty ayy
UL ysauaquL Aawqatsdoud e apniout aou sop qnia faz
wunog pue 3109 ReazEYD UL diyssequah * AYYLITYdOYd-NON

“IT NOILOaS

‘aaqueu 2e(nBay e se sauuew awes ayz uL diysiaq
=wew 03 pa32219 2q Leys OUM UOyZeyNdas Jo JaazeLeYD
Poo6 40 uosuad & aq | Leys saquiaw [P1205 Y - TyII0S (/

: as quaw
4e(nBay e se JouueW ues ayz uy dyyssequew 03 paz9a19
i 84 LLBYS OYM puk StuUaZ Si ysetazuL jeuoLzrauo—L
pue 21991432 (edjduLad asoyK Uo!gegndad Jo saqoe4eUD
poob 30 uosdad & aq (Leys uaquew sjuUa) y - STNNSL (9

+ sazquew 42430
40 pearnbes senp (enuue ayz 30 queued 4o saaz uoLiels

LUE 40 queued yo Az}sserau ay3 ynoyytm qnia aya UL
dyysasquew 03 W01399{2 30 wouoy [epdeds ay2 queen 03
S@ JOARapUS 2LZ9(YZE AO [eNzDd| [eqUL “tZL3UaLIS * [PD
~Hattod Fyeang ina us gLasury paysin6ui3s4p os sey oum

‘TUnpe ue aq [Leys saquiew Avesouoy uy - AYWONOH (S

*aequaw pasearap & 40 MOPIM aya aq LLRYS
@yssaquow 40 SSeL2 siya uy aLqepnlsuT “paptAosd

daz euja4ay J2UUeW 343 UL dLyssaquaul 03 pazD—aLa us—Aq
“wey [LBYS OUM ‘UO}3ezNd|1 10 daz>EIRYD poo go * suRaA
"BT go abe aya ueno ‘Apel patssewun uy - s3]av7 (Pp

“asnougnly
BUY Woy SALW O3NgeIS ODT UeYR s4oW pazeD01 SE aDUEP
~$Sa4 Lensn 40 e2e1d pue a14>{Wop SLY yeYyz qdadxe 4aq
wou Je[nBay e@ se ApLLenb asimioyz0 PLNOM OyM UOstad

B aq LleYs saquew qUapisey-UON Y ~ INIGISIY-NON (E

*paagiupe pue panosdde
S} BauBjsse mau e Sua YORE QO"OOT$ Jo 234  paburyD
8q OSL LLPYS Jaquau uILs to azBu0d109 243 yeY2 4dadxo
‘saaqueu se (n6sy pabsey> 724} se ues ay; aq [Leys
Jequam ul} 10 a7240d409 e 40 pabieyo sanp jenuue

yl +9933 IuUMI0D suO}sstupy aya Xq aauB,sse MoU aua

49 [eAoudde 43 02 329fgns ‘uaquow wufs 40 23eJ10d.09,,
2ya Aq aura 03 aula wouy pabuey> aq Kew aaubjsse aul

S
. “dyyssaquews
aeinbay e se syseq aues ay; UO senp LenuUe pabueyS
2G LLEUS BaUBLsse YoeD pur “diysiequoU wits JOS
aqeuodiod yoea 10s pazayubied aq Kew soaubtsse Yyonse
@Afy URYT B4oW ON “ASN 40g 10z924Lp 40 BALgndaxese
$499}440 ue 07 paublsse uay; pur mits 40 UoLzes0da.
“402 a3 Jo sueU 949 UL pansse 9g [Leys 2789/4 191a9
dyyssaquew 243 3243 ydeo%e ‘suotqeinBay pue seLny
ML9 243 pue sMeT-fg asay7 UL paulyep se ‘siaqual,
ae nboy 40 seGaqiAtsd pur szy614 oy yo [Le Aofua
LUBUS SSBL> SLY3 JO SuaqUEN - HYI4 40 3LvYOdYOD (Z

*papyaoud
aq seupauay, uauuew ay3 Uy dyysaaquaw 02 paq2a1a
uaaq aAey [Leys oym UOLre3Ndei 40 42z2e4eY9 poO6
40 uosiad B aq [Leys uaqued 4einBey y - xyIN9ZY (T

iSasSe[2 BUYMOL LOS 24a O3U; PEPLALP
34 LLeYS dhyssequaw 241 “dIHSYaEHIH JO S3SSYT

“1 NOILO3S

- GAT AYLNNOD GNY 4709 AVILVHD
40
SMW I- AS

5943 SeqeBjnuoud Aqe494 CYYOS BUL

“papyoep

ALaywuinaiM |q [Leys suoyysanb pagndsip go peadde
UZ YD}UA B40J3q JAOsed 3Se{ Jo LeUNgIJ2 Bu3 ‘St FL
PUB GL) ayy JO Safesse YZ 40 [[P 49A0. UOLSLALadns
[esauab yo samod @y3 UZLM PazSaA S| 3} pue 9823 LUNHOD
SUO}SSJupy ay} Se A[SnodUR, [MMS SaA4aS: SYOLITYIO
40 GYYOR PUL “Gnl ay3 40 suoLae[Nbaa pur seins
8y3 a240jua pue azebinuoud *ydope ‘auedaad 03 A3t
4ougne Jayzing ay3 Sey 31 “SBSSe{D Yons [Le Usandd,
0} suop3einba aya pur Aq pyed aq o2 sanp pue seas
Lue pur ‘sa6apapad pue suorzeopsptend 243 aq}aos
aud 03 puR ‘aIQeStApe usp Kew 2} se diysuaquow

40 S8SSBL9 40 SseI9 YONS Yst{qeasa’ ‘pred aq 03 sanp


1805

1 AUBRY N. WALLACE, 240 Garden Road,

2 Marrero, Louisiana, after having been

3 first duly sworn, was examined and

4 testified as follows:

5 |THE court:

6 : Mr. Wallace, your attorney has

7 indicated to me that he‘s advised of your
8 rights:

9 One, to a trial by jury,

10 Teo, to confrout your accusers, and
11 Three, against self-incrimwination

12 and that by entering a plea of guilty you
13 are waiving or giving up these rights.

14 He's also indicated to me that you
15 have advised him that you understand

16 these things; is that correct?

17 | TSB DEFENDANT:
is Yes.

19 |THE couRT:

20 I want you to convince me also that
21 you understand what you are doing by

22 entering this plea of guilty.

23 Consequently, I am going to explain the
24 nature of the crime to which you are

25 pleading guilty and I will also explain

the colsequences of your plea of guilty:

If you have any questions or if you do

28 " mot understand anything I say stop me and
29 I will answer your questions and give you
30 any additional instructions which you may
3L desire.

32 | Ms. Lambert, this case is wEiQhTO00000§:


1786

eriticel matters of mitigation at the point when the jury
was to decide whether to sentence Lane Nelson to death.

This failure was unreasonable, and it was prejudicial to the
@efendant in that there is a reasonable probability that had

this evidence been presented, the jury would have concluded
104 S.ct. at

that death was not warranted. Strickland
pgs. 2064-2069.
Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's tenth claim,
regarding the sentencing phase of the trial, to have merit.
Having found that defendant's tenth claim has merit,
IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Application for
Post-Conviction Relief as regards claim ten, be and the same
is hereby granted vacating and setting aside defendant's

original sentence.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter be

set on the Court's docket within ninety days, by the sta
of Louisiana to retry the sentencing phase of the
defendant's trial. If the State of Louisiana fails to
schedule this trial within the allotted time period, the
Court will resentence the defendant.
CLAIM XI

Defendant's eleventh claim is that ha was improperly
sentenced to death on the basis of a single aggravating
circumstance that merely echoed an element of the underlying
crime for which he was convicted: .

‘The Supreme Court of the United States addressed this

issue in Lowenfield y. Phelps, Secretary, Louisiana

Department of Corrections, et Slip Opinion No. 86-6867,
decided January 13, 1988, at p.II. The United States

Supreme Court held “The death sentence does not violate the
Bighth Amendment simply because the single statutory
‘aggravating circumstance’ found by the jury duplicates an
tlement of the underlying offense of first-degree murder."
Accordingly, this Court finds the defendant's eleventh

slaim without merit.

= ate

PoRTOO0000221


1604

capital punishment. (Attachment “B-3")

i Cc. i , Civil Action # 247-364,
24th J.D.C., State of Louisiana, Division "A", Judge Louis G. DeSonier,Jr.

The brief represents my sole personal work. Trial on the summary
judgment, December 18, 1980. Sole Counsel: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Petition for mandamus seeking a building permit.
Complex litigation involving the rights of the parish government to deprive
the applicant of a permit to construct a terminal. The parish government had
passed a moratorium on the issuance of permits. The moratorium was
challenged on the basis of the parish’s failure to properly advertise the
notice of the moratorium legislation.

Final Disposition: Mandamus granted. Parish was ordered to issue a permit.

Instructor: Criminal Law/Criminal Procedure
For three years, I taught at St. Mary Dominican College. The class was a
required course in the Criminal Justice program.

Co-instructor: Civil Procedure.

In conjunction with another attorney, I volunteered my time to teach third-
year law students at Loyola School of Law. The emphasis was not only on
the written and codified law, but also on the practical application of the law
during trial proceedings: I taught the course during the Spring term in 1990
and 1991. |

Speaker - Continuing Legal Education. I appeared as a speaker for
numerous CLE programs, such as: the Jefferson Bar Association, Louisiana
Judicial College and Louisiana State Bar Association Summer School for

Lawyers

District Court Judge
State of Louisiana
Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

a

PORTOOG000033


1749

He had not planned to ride with Douglas, nor does it appear
that he was attempting to enter the car. The spontaneity

of Stark's behavior militates against his fully comprehending
the risks attendant. Finally, nowhere does it appear that
Stark knew that Douglas would start his car and drive away
with Stark clinging to its side. Once Douglas left, Stark
had no idea how far he would drive. Even if Stark hopped
aboard once the car began to move, it cannot be said that
Stark voluntarily assumed the risks of bouncing across

a neighbor's yard or of proceeding on down the street.

Stark was given no opportunity to get off during the course

nings of Bell and the

of these maneuvers. Given the 1
facts herein, we find the court correctly concluded that

assumption of the risk was inapplicable as a matter of

law.
We now turn to the questions of whether the trial

court erred in its reassessment of the percentdges of fault.
By the 1979 amendment of La. C.C.P. art. 1811 quantum may,
indeed, be altered by J.N.O.V. provided that "based on
‘the evidence there is no genuine issue of fact." That
is, “where the trial court is convinced that, under the
evidence, reasonable minds could not differ as to the amount
of damages, it should have the authority to grant the appropriate
judgment notwithstanding the verdict." La. C.C.P. art.
1811 comments. We also note that this enunciated standard
applies to’ changes affecting the merits, more specifically,
the reassessment of fault. Blum v. New Orleans Pub. Serv.,
Inc., 469 $o.24 1117, 1219 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985), writ
denied, 472 So.24 921 (La. 1985).

The trial court, in its reasons for judgment,

states, in part:

PORTO00000184


1788

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the
Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the
sentencing phase of this trial.

SLAIN XVIT

Defendant's seventeenth claim is that his sentence is
arbitrary and capricious.

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the
Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the
sentencing phase of this trial.

SLAIN, xvrrr

In defendant's eighteenth claim he contends that his
sentence is invidiously discriminatory.
‘The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the

Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the

sentencing phas;

of this trial.
CLAIM XIX

Defendant's nineteenth claim is that capital punishment
is an excessive penalty.

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the
Court has, ordered that a new hearing be held in the
sentencing phase’ of this trial.

CUATM xx

In defendant's twentieth claim he contends that the
cumulative effect of violations of his rights is in itself a
violation of his constitutional rights.

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the

Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the

3

sentencing phase of this trial.

Gretna, Louisiana, this

Assistant District Attorney, Jood

Ur. Charles L. Stern, Jr., Attorney for Defendant,
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson
546 Carondelet Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Warden, Hilton Butler, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana 70712

~ 29 -
PORTO00000223


1616

“ZEih_] FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT §Eg EE
TR I TR STE ES EE] aa a

Unteed states District court

Porteous (Jr.), Gabriel T. Eastern District of Lovisiana 8-29-94

or
Gea ae | See

—mieiat __ aaouel rina
United States District Court Judge 151-93 = 8-25-96
Tr coasters oF Office Maree "O7'ba tha basis of the, inforsetion contained tn gale Report, 1
Divielon A, 24th Judietal District Cc. | i; 18.fy silos, im covpllatce sth sppiicabla‘ied aad

Gretna Courthouse ~ Annex Bldg.
Gretna, Loufsiana 70053 evteving offteur signature

POSITIONS. (Reporting idiidual ony see pp. 7-8 of Instructions)
POSITION: NAME OF ORGANIZATION/ENTITY

‘NONE (80 reportable positions)

« AGREEMENTS. Reporting individual only, see p. 89 of Instructions) .
‘DaTE PARTIES AND TERMS .

NONE (Wo copertabia oprecmones)

1. NON-ANVESTMENT INCOME, (Reporting indies! nd spouse; seo pp 912 of Istrocions)
DATE SQURCE AND TYPE ‘GROSS INCOME
(Honoraria only) (ours, not spouses)
NONE (20 reportabie soa-iavesteeot income)
1994 Year co Date

Judicial State of Loutstana $49,206.00
Vascular Laboratory, Ine. (8) 3
T99S
Judicial State of Louist $_12,830.58 >
‘Southern Baptist Hospital (Final balance of annuity,

—__—_ se mother) 3___ 281.39

Vascular Laboratory, Inc. (S)
(See Attachnent_ I) pokroogsagess



1685

Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or
unprofessional conduct by, or, to your knowledge, been subject of a
complaint to, any court, administrative agency, bar association, disciplinary
committee, or other professional group? If so, give the particulars.

No.
With respect to your judicial service,

a. _ Have you participated in any proceeding in which you had a stock or
other financial interest in one of the parties or in the matter in
controversy? If so, give particulars.

b. Is there a rule or custom in your court as to judges sitting on such
cases? If so, state the rule or custom and whether or not you have

complied with it.

The custom in our court would be for a judge to voluntarily recuse
themselves. This is subject to all appropriate Louisiana civil and criminal
laws. I have always complied with this custom.

-c. Have you to the best of your knowledge and belief complied with
. applicable statutes and Cannons of the American Bar Association

relative to such matters as were in force and applicable at the time?
If not, give particulars.

Yes.

d. Have you ever received compensation from outside sources for
services rendered (other than fees or expenses for lectures or
teaching)? If so, give particulars.

a. What is the present state of your health?

24

PORTOG0000120


1621

{YTHATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT
etementi

EMAFTER REFERRED: noTice- Ts
PAB eaary NX? Raseamer oy you on anil etc La your pra save deny ommnusy pepe ot tears
‘210 GARONNE STREET ee ye ies, wal at wt yb aed ol ef npr conn
Spe a eg cy iter oi wn you srt Ns pels com Pepa ot

[NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160 spon shud sbi soparate Pence Franc Staloment and tach Kw Your.

FORBANKUSEONLY: OFFICER
Pato do notice any question unaired aikWA (Wei Applica" Won ope Wh woud aha baton

TRONVIDUAL RFORHATION
(Mane Cabriel Thowas Fortesus, Jr. Employer Name JUGTCLAL BESUCH, State OF LOULSTaRe
[Actress 4801 Neyrey Drive [Employer Address 301 Loyola Avenue
City, Stato & Zip Metairie, Louisiana 70002 [Ciy, Stato &2p New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
ate of Bh ear wih Present Glayer_10
Soda Sey Postion oc Oxspaton Judge
[Residential Phone _(' 5879 [Business Phone (504) 364-3850
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AS OF | il 26 11994
(25 ot ncaa 025) Senta vn) GR2S, ASILTIES bess
[Gash S00 Schoade 1) Roba Payable = Gee Schade #)
Caeh in Ti etn [Ti 500" “Wee Pyatiew Tein Seared
Cash in Other intone 11, 700] — Nowe Payable b This tnstasSon -Uneecured Serr
US. Govt & Mattie Soins - (Soa Sale ‘Or Vote Payable Sacred
US. Govt Scaten ‘Oar oe Payable = Urweced
one Mactan nd nd FR “are Lame
Usted Sesuntes (NYSE, ASE, OTO). Taare Age! Wari Acauri (Sea Sddde 3
Geet Hots Nat Ain Trad Soci ~ Li esrace Pot Loane« (See Sched 3) 7000,
‘ee Sched 2) ea Esto Payaio- (Ss Sheclo
ja Surender Value “Ue osu Paes Ponacal iene 3,000
‘Gon Schckde 3) 15,000 | Ota Waly med fel Ea
TEA Keo, Pott Shang & Obs Veaed Partly Owrnd fod Ex
Retroment Acoums- (Sve Schdde 4) 92,408 [land Gas tion (Se Sched 7
[Real Estate - (Sve Schedule 5) [ Grockt Gard Accounts and Gis Dus. EYPLEL
Peronal ZS, 000 | eara On w Parone
‘Gtr Wioty Own Fal Eraie pad neo Tax
Partly Owned od Etat [oer roa Teas ad rere
Fl Estate ocgagoe Owen - (San Sched 6 eta Tax Ubon Aewa FL
[Accoons Rehabie & Hote Feceiraia-(So0 SSeSia ther Det =e stow
[Od wid Gas ramos (See Shea 7)
atered inca
 Asposbine 000
[Ot Asset
Personal Prapecty_ 25,000
Parbertip erode
eerie | TITS:
WetWert [228,141
‘YoulAseas | 365,008 “Total abides and Net Wort | 365, 608
GENERAL INFORMATION.
tanec of Onpendons ating Spay. 4 Agee 23, ZL, 18s TS ait Save ll varied Cl anaried El Separaed
Spouse lntomnaion:
’ Carmella Giardina Porteous
Kaas (lero mn
‘Nano Tascutae Laboratory, Inc. Technician
Employer Bivd., Wetairié, Loutetana 70008
Sock Sooty an ith 12-23-48 pusvace Phone (508) 456-5530 _

ached co RG Rete dasaeas we Mme HEE oo GOg056 |



1772

Trial transcript, January 7, 1982, page
105, lines 2-10.

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire trial
transcript and is of the opinion that the improper remarks
complained of by the defendant did not result in any
prejudice to the defendant, in light of the Court's
admonition and instructions to the jury and the strength of

evidence against the defendant.

Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's eighth claim

without merit.
CLAIM 1x

In defendant's ninth claim he contends that the trial
court improperly called the jury's attention to his failure
to testify during the guilt phase of the trial.

A review of the trial tranecript reflects that after
the Bill of Indictment was read the Court read La.R.S.14:30
and its responsive verdicts to the jury. The Court then
informed the jury of the manner in which the trial would
proceed. ‘The Court stated, “Second, the State will then
introduce evidence intended to support the charges contained
in the Bill of Indictment which you heard read a moment ago.
Third, after the state has presented its evidence, the
defendant may also present evidence, but the defendant is
not required to do so." ‘Trial transcript, January 6, 1982,
page 31, lines 18-26. rt is a correct statement of law that
the defendant is not required to present evidence. :
Defendant in no way could be prejudiced by this statement
made bythe Court.

Defendant contends that 2 part of the Court's
instructions given the jury before their deliberation
referred to the petitioner's right to remain silent and his
failure to testify, the court's instruction was as follows:
“The defendant is not required by law to call any witnesses
or produce any evidence. The defendant is not required to
testify. No presumption of guilt may be raised and no
inference of any kind may be drawn from the fact that the

-u-

PORTOOG000207


1706

26TR JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

~ STATE OF LOULSIANA
RO, 285-171 Drvrston
EDGAR CARLSEN
vs.

MEHAFFEY & DAIGLE, INC., ET AL
FILED: » 1987 DEPUTY CLERK:

igocment
This cause cane for hearing on a action for a new trial on che 19th
day of Decenber, 1986.
PRESENT: REMY FRANSEN, Actornay for Plaincife
ROBERT M. JOHNSTON, Accorney for Defendants
ALISON E. ROBERTS, Attorney for Defendants
Considering the law and evidence, the court finds thac there {s uo
basis in lav or fact to support the conclusion of che jury as to che avard of general
damages,
HT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that che verdict of che jury in the
above entitled and numbered cause be and ic {s hereby set aside and a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict 1s granted as to the award of general damages in jury

incerrogatory aumber 7 as follows:

Theat there be judguene is favor of Edger Carlsen in the amount of

ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($150,000.00) DOLLARS.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the original judgment of che

court and all other jury interrogatories still stand in effect.
TT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion for a new
‘trial as to damages be conditionally granted if the court's ruling on the judgment

notwithstanding the verdict is reversed or vacated.
‘IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED chat the aotton for
additur be denied.
JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED AND SIGNED this ay of January, 1987,

at Gretna, Louisiana,

2%

porToaesuurad


1617

ATTACHMENT I

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT (cont'd) PORTEOUS (JR.), Gabriel T, 8-29-94

TEI. NON-INVESTMENT INCOME

1992 Judicial State of Louisiana $74,384.26
Southern Saptist Hospital 1,652.64
(Retirement annuity deceased mother)

3,287.40

Executive Life Insurance of California
(Retirement annuity deceased mother)

Vascular Laboratory, Inc. (S)

PORTOONG000052


1783

to turn into behavior in’ an
ed, unmonitored way.

Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11,
1986, p. 156, lines 9-28; p.157, lines 3-15.

Dr. Richoux explained:

It's my opinion that Mr. Nelson's
intoxication at the time of the offense
affected his conduct in a disinhibitory
fashion consistent with what I described
before concerning the affects of alcohol
on brain functioning, and that is to
remove the sensory ¢r monitoring portion
of the brain that prevents under normal
circumstances when an individual is not
intoxicated that person from acting on
unacceptable impulses including violent
impulses.

I think there were obviously very rageful
feelings present in Mr. Nelson and the
effects of the alcohol was to disinhipit
him to the point that those impulses turned
into actions.

Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11,
1986, p.159, lines 24-28; p.160, lines 3-16.

At the evidentiary hearing, Or. Richoux informed the
court that the defendant had a "fairly traumatic
upbringing". He gained most of this information from
affidavits given by individuals who would have testified at
the sentencing phase of the trial had they been asked to
testify. Dr. Richoux testified that this type of
information concerning the defendant's background is
important because the defendant, “presents, 25 an adult,
primarily his past character or personality type".
Bvidentiary hearing transcript, November 11, 1986, p.180,
Lines 27-28. .

In the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Richoux was asked to
explain how this type of crime could have occurred, since it
was not typical of the defendant's passive dependent
personality type. His reply:

What he dia, primarily by a very catastrophic
- coming together of two factors. The first one
being his intoxication of alcohol. This is
disinhibleor or releasing factor, you sight
say. The other thing are the enctions that T
so described previously in relation to hic
life circumstances at that time. The way that
they aggravated feelings of depression and
rage they were part of his character all along

but became much more intense in relation to
breaking up with his common law wife and in

= 24

PORTOO0000218


1777

In the evidentiary hearing which was held in this
matter, the Court for the first time learns of defendant's
background. The Court is made avare that the defendant grev
up in an environment where his parents were alcoholics and
they physically abused each other and his mother abused him.
Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 13, 1986, p.60,
lines 5-24; p. 77, lines 17-29; p.78, lines 1-15. This
information comes from the testimony of Barbara Langedyk,
the defendant's aunt. She was not contacted by either of
the defense counsel to testify at the sentencing phase of
the defendant's trial. Had she been contacted she would
have been willing to come to Louisiana to testify.
Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 13, 1986, p.88,
Lines 27-29; p.89, lines 1-4

Linda Benisek (formerly Linda Nelson), the defendant's
sister, testified in her deposition which was held on June
14, 1986 in Torrance, California that the defendant became
involved with drugs as an adolescent. Deposition of Linda
Benisek, June 14, 1986, e.12, lines 20-28; p.13, lines 1-12.

At this same deposition, Linda Benisek testified that
when the defense counsel phoned her and asked her to cone
to New Orleans and testify at her brother's trial he didn't
explain what she might be testifying about. she also
testified that at the time she was contacted by phone the
defense counsel never inguired if there were any other
witnesses who might be able to testify for the defendant.
Deposition of Linda Benisek, June 14, 1586, p.22, lines
19-28; p.23, lines 1-3.

Nancy Sullivan, a friend of the defendant's testified
at the evidentiary hearing that the defendant had a drinking
problem. Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 13, 1986,
p.138, lines 18-20.

The fact that the defendant hed grown up in an abusive
home, that his parents were alcoholics, and that he had
problems with arugs and alcohol was never revealed to the

jurors at the sentencing phase of defendant's trial. The
-1-

PORTOG0000212


1784

relation to his mother‘s terminal illness and
in relation to the particular behavior and
appearance, dress, and so forth of the person
who ultimately became the victim.

Me. Nelson felt depression, rage and all of
these in extreme form and giving the releasing
or disinhibiting effect of the alcohol those
impulses and feelings got translated into his
behavior in a violent fashion.

Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11,
1986, p.186, lines 14-28; p.187, lines 3-9.

It is apparent from the evidentiary hearing, that had
defense counsel properly prepared to examine Dr. Shraberg at
the sentencing phase of trial, he could have elicited the
doctor's professional opinion concerning the defendant and
his state of mind. It is Dr. Shraberg's opinion that the
defendant was intoxicatéd, that he acted spontaneously, and
was in a state of severe emotional distress at the time of
the commission of the offense.

It is also apparent that had Dr. Richoux been called
upon to testify that he would have given his opinion
concerning the defendant and his state of mind at the time
of the offense. It was Dr. Richoux's professional opinion
that the defendant was grossly intoxicated from alcohol at
the time of the offense and that the defendant was
experiencing an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of
the offense. The jury did not get to hear any of this
information.

No attempt was made by defense counsel to obtain
possible mitigation testimony from family members, other
than the defendant's sister, or individuals who knew Lane
Nelson from work, the Army or Florida. These individuals
would have been willing to testify concerning the
defendant's background had they been asked to by counsel:
Members of the defendant's family, Barbara Langedyk, his
aunt and Josephine Langedyk, his grandmother; Rick Diaz, who
worked with the defendant in California; friends of the
defendant's from Florida who were Jean Marie Joyner, Nancy
Sullivan and Kim Kern; and Wendy Ann Brown, who was a friend

of the defendant's from the Army. These individuals would
-25-

PORTOO0000219


1646

Gwenty- Fourth Judicial Bistrict Gourt
PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

CHAMBERS OF * Greten
6. Gyemas Portsexs, It,
WuoaE, DsiON September 27, 1994 .

Committee on the Judicia
Attn: Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-6275

Dear Senator Biden:

Pursuant to the request from the Judiciary Committee, enclosed
please find the original and two copies of the decisions referred to
by me in response to Question 15 (1). Copies of the unpublished opinions
of the Court of Appeals in the following cases are also attached:

In the Hatter of Wrongful Death of Stanton J. Stark,
Fic. 86-CA=34 (La. App. 5 Gir., June, 1986)

Judy Watts on behalf of minor, Polly Watts v. J. C.
Penny, et al, App. Ct. # 93-CA-811_, (La, App. 5 Cir.,

1994)

All of the decisions referred to in my. response to Quastion
15 (3) were rendered from the bench, and accordingly, there are no
written decisions. The only exception is State vs. Lane Nelson and
& copy of thie decision is attached.

If any further information is required, please advise.

Sincerely,

G, THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.

GIPjr/rd
Enclosures

bee: Nancy Scott-Finan

PORTGO0000081


1656

2

In duly, 1987, Ms. Watts discharged Mr. Cerullo and hired

Lawrence Hand to represent her in the action for damages. Mr.
cerullo filed a petition of intervention in November, 1988
seeking attorney’s fees and reimbursement of certain costs. The
lawsuit was settled out of court on December 10, 1990 for a total
of $270,000.00; of which, $90,000.00 was withheld for payment of
attorney's fees. Mr. Hand received one-half of that amount, or
$45,000.00, immediately and the remaining $45,000.00 was held in
escrow pending consideration of and ruling on Mr. Cerullo’s
claim,

After a trial on the merits, mr. Cerullo was awarded
$5,000.00 and the remaining $40,000.00 was avarded to Mr. Hand.
Me trial court gave extensive written reasons for judgment which
indicate that the award represents payment for thirty hours of
work at $125.00 per hour. ‘he trial court stated that, "the

- Court finds that Mr. Carullo’s contribution to the ultinate
resolution of the case was minimal. His sole accomplishment was
to interrupt prescription.“ Mr. Cerullo argues that the avard is

too low to fairly compensate him for his work.

The litigation record of the principal matter shows that Mr.
Cerullo filed only one pleading, the initial petition. service
on that petition was held and, in fact, naver accomplished. No
depositions were taken in the three years Hr. Cerullo had the
case. At trial, Mr. Cerullo testified that he did not keep a
vecord of the time he spent working on the case. Ha cubmittad a
reconstructed summary of hours worked, asserting that he spent a
total of 263.25 hours.

At trial Mr. Cerullo stipulated that service on the petition
for damages was held, that there was no litigation using the
courts and, that there were no depositions or discovery of any
kind. We testified that he spent time researching the case,
discussing the matter with the insurance adjuster and various
medical end legal experts. Mr, Cerullo stated that he did not
move forward with the case hecause the injured girl was only

PorTOOG000091


1611
TV CONFIDENTIAL
Full name (include names used).

Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Address: List current place of residence and office address(es). List all
office and home telephone numbers where you may be reached.

Residence: 4801 Neyrey Drive (504) 455-5879
Metairie, LA 70002
Office: Division “A* (504) 364-3850

Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg.
2nd floor, Room 200
Gretna, LA 70053

Have you ever been discharged from employment for any reason or have
you ever resigned after being informed that your employer intended to

discharge you?
No.

Were all your taxes (federal, state, and local) current (filed and paid) as of
the date of your nomination?

Yes.

Has a tax lien or other collection procedure (to include receipt of computer
balance due notices) ever been instituted against you by federal, state, or
local authorities? If so, give full details. .

No.

Have you or your spouse ever been the subject of any audit, investigation
or inquiry for either federal, state, or local taxes? If so, give full details.

No.

31

PoRTG00000046


1697

26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 263-171 DIVISION "A"

IN THE HATTER OF THE
WRONGFUL DEATH OF STANTON J. STARK
FILED:, » 1985 DEPUTY CLERK:

JUDGMENT

This case having been duly tried before and submite’

on the 22nd of Harch, 1985, and the furyhaving this day teturned a verdidt

in the form of interrogatories as follows:

PORTO00000132


1681

Robert C. Lehman

1895 West Causeway Blvd.
Mandeville, LA 70448
(804)626-4509

Wade A. Langlois
Daniel A. Ranson
2304 Manhattan Blvd.
Harvey, LA 70058
P.O. Box 1910
Gretna, LA 70054
(504)362-2466

14. Have you ever held public office other than a judicial office? If so, give the
details, including the offices involved, whether elected or appointed and the
length of your service, giving dates.

Yes.

Special Counsel, Attorney General Q/LO/TL - 10/7/73
State of Louisiana

Assistant District Attorney 2/1/73 - 8/6/84
Parish of Jefferson

Both were appointed positions.

15. Have you ever been an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial, or other
public office? If so, give details, including dates.

No.

16. Have you ever been “engaged in “aily occupation, “biisiliéss, or profession
other than the practice of law or holding judicial or other public office? If
80, give details, including dates.

No.

20

PORTO00000116


1839

‘Terminated Counts Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

None

Complaints

None

Assigned to: Judge George P Kazen

‘Defendant (2)

Lori M Marcotte ~ represented by John Wilson Reed

TERMINATED: 08/28/2006 Glass & Reed
530 Natchez St.
‘New Orleans, LA 70130
504-581-9083
Email: jwreed@bellsouth.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

Pending Counts Disposition

18:371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

MAIL FRAUD sentenced 8/28/06

Q)°

‘Highest Offense Level (Opening)

Felony

‘Terminated Counts Disposition

None

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

None

Complaints Disposition

None

United States of America represented by Michael William Magner

https://ecf.laed uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p1?92349837093 1478-L_567_0-1 10/15/2008


1690

you, or which you believe should be disclosed in connection with
consideration of you for nomination for the Federal Judiciary.

None.

29

PORTO00000125


1778

information was not available because the defense counsel
did not investigate defendant's background and had made no
attempts to contact friends of the defendant from Florida
and the Army and family members, other than defendant's
sister.

During the evidentiary hearing the following colloquy
took place between Mr. Samuel Stephens and Mr. Robert
McGlasson, one of the attorneys representing the defendant
in his application for post-conviction relief:

Q. Were you aware that prior to the
trial of other members of Hr.
Nelson's family and other friends.

A. He mentioned he had relatives out
west.

@. Are you aware that he hada
grandmother in California?

A. I believe he told me he did.

Q. Did you interview or attempt
speak to her?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that he had an
aunt in California?

A. He told me.

Q. 4a you interview or attempt to
speak with her?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware of any other family.
members or friends?

A. I knew he had a girlfriend in
Plorida. :

Q. Bid you speak with her or interview
her?

Ae No.
Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11, 1986, p. 123,
lines 4-22,

+ "It is the duty of the lawyer to conduct a prompt
investigation of the circumstances of the case and explore
all avenues leading to facts relevant to guilt and to a
degree of guilt or penalty." American Bar Association

Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards

-19-

PORTOO0000213


1695

O75 1 eo 7TLISTE
Defendants argue that 37:1455(4) provides that the party can agree

aot to escrow che funds. The court gives no weight to chis argument for

two reasons, First, che contract fs silent as to escrow and the statute

staces che party has to agree in writing. And second, che court finds the

in full prior

agent confessed ignorance as to what to do vhen @ person pa
to act of sale, and their claim that plaintiff agreed such an escrow was
not required, are incongruous.

‘The court finds chat both Zehentaer and Henderson oved & fiduciary
duty to plaintifé chat vas breached and was a proximate cause of plaintiff's
danages.

As to the defendant, Pietre Villere, it 1s clear to the court chat

mistepresentacions were made with the intent Co obtain an unjust advancage

over plaintiff which caused his loss and that Mr. Villere was guiley of unfati
trade practices which were immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous and haruful co
plaincifs.

‘The court is of che opinion chat Mr. Villere's actions were decepcive
frou the beginging. The check was immediately deposiced ia bis operating
account and used for the routine operations of Carriage Court Condominiues.

crowed; he knew a partial release vas not available

The money vas never

from Audubon Federal and that he could not go to closing until be had sold

a sufficieat number of units.
ced

After plaintiff insisted on some documentation, he reluctantly presi
‘This document vas only

hin with a Worthless document acknowledging hia-ritl
recorded due to plaiatiff's enterprise. Villere further conpounded his fraud
by using che unit for cross collateralization om other units (Exhibit 2-16).
FS, Michell as to the cloud on his title, he assured

When inforned by Pe!
hin he could get it removed. He compounded his fraud again with bis, attempt
co send his herecofore gullible confederate to sign sdditional papers to
remove che acknowledgaent from che public records (Exhibit 13, 16 and 25).

It was at this point, Ann Zehentner abandoned ber role as double agent and
enlightened plaintiff of his predicament.

‘The court is convinced thac the aegligence of the real estate agents and
che fraud of Mr. Villere caused emotional injury to plaintiff, Louisiana
Courts have recognized that emotional injury is 4 separate elenent of damages’
for which cecovery {s available vhea the evidence establishes both the

existence of such injury and its causal conection Co defendant's negligence.

Ome yy?

d]
PORTOO0000130

Dousson v. South Central Bell, 429 So. 24 466.



1801

Iudge..if he_frequently_ate lunch with Mr..Marcotte and provided him
with the name of the two restaurants they frequent. He’ admitted
that he has had several ltinches with Mr/“Marcotte, but he didn’t
know if he would term his lunches with Marcotte as "frequent".
Additionally, we asked if he had traveled to Las Vegas with Mr.
Marcotte and he confirmed that he had. The Judge stated that six
or seven people went as a group to Vegas and Marcotte was a member
of the group. ‘The Judge when asked did Marcotte pay his way,
-qnickly changed the subject..._Porteous when asked a second time
advised-trat-Marcotte-did not pay his way-to-vegasr— -———-

We then questioned the Judge about the factors he considered
in deciding to amend Aubry Wallace’s sentence on September 22,
1994. The Judge stated that he had known Wallace before he
appeared before him on the burglary charge. He was a sheriff/s
deputy until he got into some type of trouble. He considered
Wallace to be a QQMBBMBMMR but liked him and thought he was
deserving of a “break", Porteous also stated that he would see
Wallace around the court house and knew he was working for
Warcotte. “The Juage stated that he felt Wallace wai
Benekie-oF Lay C. CES PES. AFETT BIT (E) 7 WwHteh permits -S-sudge to

set aside the conviction and dismiss the prosecution) because he

entitled to be

was told by the defense attorney that he (Porteous) did not advise
Wallace at the time he tendered his plea that Article 893 was
available to him. Porteous advised he did not recall the guilty
plea at all nor did he check the record. The Judge stated that he
recently had granted another 893 plea to another felon that had
completed his sentence 20 years ago.

Page 3 of 4

CORGRPENTU a6


1790

JU-221984 10:19 FR. FAL NEY ORES SOLD? 10 ee
SA~eS-1994 1100 PRON PBL 2 ORES 0 (Te ee

{UPPLEMENT TO STANDARD FORM 86 (SF-86)
+ (Attach additional pages if necessary)

19.

Please fist alt Pr jac otver than Poa ee eg a na of yar
Ease te oth cones ool sda ° *

” :
= a i fotm f+
Hao ‘enneay wie ik sxodaiod ovr been the ject |
Feed sl See ae :
‘ ~
wo ae

$5. Have you aver baad tvoived in chill oc cximinal Rigaton, or i adoniniseative | cases
pier, deo: Teen am
Ione ua ae Signs oni esoty ae co ean “

BT FL,

PORTO00000297


1719

26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

——
NO. 354-591 DIVISton “a*
KARER JEWELL, wife of/and DONALD GLASS, ET AL
VERSUS
‘THE BERKSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL ,
FILED: » 1992 DEPUTY CLERK:

LUDGMENT
‘This matter cage for hearing on the Sth day of November, 1991, on
octons and exceptions.
PRESENT: JAMES 0, MANNING, Attorney for Plaintiffs

ERIC 0. GISLESON, Accorney for Defendants,
HARRIS WORTGAGE and BERKSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

‘TUOMAS C. WILKINSON, Accorney for Defendant,
AYBERNTA NATIONAL BANK

JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR., Attorney for Defendant,
RIBERNIA NATZONAL BANK

ROBERT B. ACOKB, JR., Attorney for Defendant,
FEDERAL NATIONAL HORTCAGE ASSOCLATION

The Court, after hearing che pleadings, the evidence and the argunenrs
aod vevoranda of Iav furnished by counsel, considering the law and evidence to
be in favor of movers, tibernia National Bank and Federal National Horcgage
Assoctation (Faonie Hae), for chi written ressces actached hereto:

TE IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED chat che notion for sumary
judgvent on behalf of Hibernia Nacional Bank be and che sane is hereby granced
dismissing plainciffs' claim ageinet chis defendane at plaintiffs cose.

TE IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED chat the motion for surkary
Judgment filed on behalf of Federal Nacional Morcgage Assoctation (Fannie Mae)
be and is hereby granted diouissing plaintiffs’ claim ageinst this defendant
at plaincitts' cost. ;

12 TS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that che notions and excepeions
Ciled on behaf of Berkshire, J. #. Karis, Streuby Drums, and Barris
Mortgage Company be and the same is hereby denied. .

JUDGMENT READ, igNDERED anp stoweD enis_/4” ay of January, 1992,

ac Geatoa, Louisiana,

PORTOOO000154


1723

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 382-915 DIVISION “A*
THUAN NGOC DO
VERSUS
PHUONG HOANG NGO AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY

FILED:

SEPUTY CLERK

REASONS F.

The piaintiff, Thuan Ngoc Do, was assaulted and shot by another patron,
mamed Cao, in a place of business calied the Queen Bee Club or Queen Bee Hall
located at 6541-6545 LaPalco Boulevard in Marrera, Louisiana. Plaintiff was
rendered permanently paraplegic as a result of the injury he sustained in the shooting.

Defendants claim they should not be liable because they were not the owners
of operators and that the actions of the gunman were totally unforeseeable and
unexpected.

Hein Dinh testified that she and Phuong Ngo live together and have three
children and that they were members of a group called the Vietnamese Airborne
Group. Defendants claim that the Vietnamese Airborne Group were responsible for
promoting that night’s activity. On the date of the shooting, arrangements had been
made for a band to perform in a portion of the premises. Hein Dinh had arranged for
uniform armed security guards. The premises sold alcoholic beverages. Both Phuong
Ngo and Hien Dinh testified that they were present at the time the shooting occurred.
Hein Dinh testified that she and Phuong Ngo remained after the shooting and that she
locked the Queen Bee on her way out and never allowed the Queen Bee to reopen.
Hien Dinh testified that she owned the building at the time of the shooting and that
Ngo owned the equipment described in the tease. Toan Dinh, defendant Hein Dinh’s
brother, testified that he was the owner of the Queen Bee Lounge because he had

entered into a lease agreement with the defendant, Phuong Ngo.

PORTOO0000158


1567

oss2yyee 47:58 Boos

Oy

YOUTAVE
ys aes ts you av abi wh rset) nd ning acd 1 yr
+f you ertanded school away fom your permanent residence, ts he adress you ved at wile attending achod.
+ For any adeross in the past 3 years:

+ Ust a parsan wo knew you at fat adress, protsraly someone who ctl vox In that area,

{i edcess ted ie "General Dalvary,” a ural Route, or Star Route, provide Grectins for locating the residence an an etched
contoutton sheet, and show the

9168 “ri 5/69: usu ge fatcher Dore Baton. ; : gas

ph

STOTT
o Fil in Information about schools you have attended, beyond Junior High School, esinning ‘with the most recent (#1) and working
Eucerd 1s yore, Moat Googe o Una Sayers ecave boyd 16 yous
"far yo stand a oer yn oa ht aCe Rg
“Ft Sareapindsct tee and orn ass hat cara nenon wen
“Int tate bose use one aleve coger tstigh schoa ZGalegeNniveraty a

Meaerren Tener] coc [ae ST

" eevee
: Stes wGire 2 | 180 School of Juris Doctor
Uebert Law Center, Room 210, Baton Rouge
“Tans a Fas WAS To ST an RE aC ERAT Fo
nee
; a a [osc faisiecmecttaey
s/eu % 5/68 igi HSU tn New Orleans chelor of Acts

prrmialed pla Orteans

Teaver Waar Ca basis i ee
futtstd
TERRE CR OTE
Prieta anaes
i er

[cor Jesu Bich Schoo)
Saat

Se sa erase

‘yur Social Security Number belore goliig to the next page +

* PoRTooDON0002


1817

CERTIFICATE

I, bisa Broussard, Official court
Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true and correct transcript of the proceedings
heard in Open Court at Gretna, Louisiana, on
September 21, 1994, before the Honorable G, Thomas
Porteous, Judge presiding, in the matter entitled
State of Louisiana versus Aubry N. Wallace,

numbered Criminal Docket Number 89-2360.

LISA BROUSSARD
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF
SEFPERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA

This ag day of Do.

1 1994,

PORTOOOO0NS:

24,


1821

2 PROCEEDINGS
2] MR. ners
3 Your Honor, Robert Reese on behaif of - -

4| THE CouRT:

5 “rem going to grant that. I've already

6 amended the sentence to provide for a 393.

7) MR. REESE: - .

8 Yes, six. I wight want to put something
3 on the record.

10| THE couRT:

a All right.

12|MR. REESE:

13 I wasn’t here last time, Judge. In that
14 matter, Mr. Wallace was placed on probation by
15 your Court. He later received a conviction,

16 but the charge he received the conviction on
17 happened prior to the probation. His probation
18 was terminated unsatisfactorily based on

19 that - -

20) THE COURT:
23 I've changed that already.
22|MR. REESE:

We already terminated the probation

24 satisfactorily. We amended the sentence for
25 893, and at this time I'm asking that the 893
26 be invoked.

27| THE court:
as} I'm going to invoke it. Under 893 the
29 dismissal will be entered.

30]/MR. REESE:

32 Thank you, Your Honor.

32

PORTO00000628


1846

was the largest bail bonding company in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, with over ninety percent of the

bail bond market.
2. The defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III, was a bail bondsman licensed under

the laws of the State of Louisiana and was the president of BBU.

3. Pursuant to Louisiana law, a bail bond agent is licensed and regulated by the DOI to

market and sell bail bonds.

4. Under Louisiana law, bail bonds are a device to insure the appearance of criminal
defendants in court.

5. Louisiana law, specifically Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 14, Article 118, defines
the felony offense of public bribery asthe acceptance or offering t0 accept, directly or indirectly,
anything of apparent present or prospective value by any person elected to public office or any public
officer with the intent fo influence the conduct of that person in relation to his or her position,
employment, or duty. Louisiana law also defines the felony offense of public bribery as the giving
or offering to give, directly or indirectly, anything of apparent present or prospective value to any
person elected to public office or any public officer with the intent to influence the conduct of that
person in relation to his or her position, employment, or duty.

6. Amwest Surety Insurance Company (hereinafter “Amwest”) was an insurance
company licensed and domiciled in the State of Nebraska which underwrote bail bonds insurance
policies, among other things, and engaged in the business of insurance and whose activities affected
interstate commerce. Amwest entered into a general agency contract with BBU and the defendant,
LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, II, on or about November 24, 1992. Pursuant to that agency contract,
BBU and LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, UI agreed, among other things, to indemnify and hold Amwest
harmless from any loss it might incur as a result of any bail bonds written by BBU, its agents and/or
LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III. To collateralize this portion of the agency contract, BBU and
LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III agrees to create a Build-up Fund (hereinafter “BUF”) by depositing

approximately one-half percent (.5%) of the face value of each bond written by BBU, its agents


1713

“equipment, therefore, the only loss to this regacd was the cost of labor to
keacive Lighting which 1s Listad above. The plainciff also testified chac
at che tise the projece vas shuc down it was 75-802 complete.

Plainciff claims chat his loss of profics were enormous in chis case.
Gaorge Laide cescified for plaintiff and stated he was a consultant and
producer of TV programing. He stated chat he had various correspondence
wich plaintiff and vanced to acquire the TV and video rights. We testified
that the project's concept began to break down and, chen, plaintiff kept
initially, was to do «

changing the opening date for the club. The id
pilot progeam and footage for one hour and one half hour programs.

All of these plans have been seemingly abandoned. Plaintiff testified
chat his credibility vith his iavestors vas damaged and he did not have che
‘aoney to seek @ new location.

‘As co chis claim for loss of profits, the Court Einds that any avard
of chis nature vould be coo speculative. The enterprise did not get off che

ground. Ic is impossible for che Cour to guess at what profits chere was

to be mad:

The plasncifé alee claimed expences of insurance, bot failed co produce
any evidence of chat loss, Therefore no award is made for chac item.

AS a general cule; attorney's fees are noc due and owing a successful
Licigane ualece specifically provided by contrast oF by scatuce. The lav done
not provide for an award of attorney fees in a suit for breach of contract against
f person ia good fait.

the Couré 1s of the opinton that vten defendane rapresanced chat he
would oben the pevhite be hed 9 SIL facentions, be merely over eatiaaced
bis abilities-and under estimaced the problems chat resulted,

Therefore, plaintiff cannot recover the actoruey's fees incurred in

this sult or his prior suit co obtein permits.
jun of FIPTY-BIGKT THOUSAND EIGHT

Accordingly, che Coure avards che
HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX AMD $0/100 ($58,856,50) DOLLARS co plaintif£, A. Paul Fuller.
Greena, Lovisiang, this gl 7 day of Jacuary, 1990.

PORTOO0G00148


1674

police and to his father. There was two statements involved. One was an
inculpatory statement made to his father. The other was a recorded confession.
The Supreme Court held that the boy’s arrest was not illegal and the statement
obtained as result of the arrest was admissible since the boy and his father had a
short private conversation in police station, free from presence of police. A second
recorded confession was suppressed because the court found the defendant did not
knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights.

Final disposition of case: Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and received 21
years.

Defense Counsel:
Jacob Amato, Jr.
901 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053
(504) 367-8181

9. Marlex Terminals, Inc. v. Parish of Jefferson, et al.
Civil Action # 247-364, 24th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana

Division "A", Judge Louis G. DeSonier, Ji.
Trial on the summary judgment, December 18, 1980
Sole Counsel: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Petition for mandamus seeking a building permit,
Complex litigation involving the rights of the parish government to deprive the
applicant of a permit to construct a terminal.

Final Disposition; Mandamus granted. Parish was ordered to issue a permit.

Opposing Counsel:

Alvin J. Dupre, Jr.

Suite A, 2701 Houma Blvd.
Mewirie; LA

(504) 454-1061

10. Eppling v. Jon-T Chemical: Inc.
Civil Action #205-643, 24th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana
13

PORTOO0000109


1860

citizens of the State of Louisiana of the honest and faithful services, performed free from deceit, bias,
self-dealing, and concealment, of certain Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Deputies in the performance of
their official duties in the Intake and Booking Section of the Jefferson Parish jail.

2, It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, in connection with the
processing of inmates and bonds, LORI M. MARCOTTE corruptly provided JPSO Deputies with
cash payments, gifts, and other things of value, in order to influence the deputies in the performance
of their officials duties, more particularly to give BBU preferential treatment at the Jefferson Parish

jail so as to maximize BBU’s profits and hinder its competition.

Cc. he Conspiracy

From in or about 1998, and continuing through the date of this bill of information, in the
Easter District-of Louisiana and elsewhere, the defendant, LORI M. MARCOTTE, and others
known and unknown to the United States Attorney, did knowingly and willfully conspire, combine,
confederate and agree together to knowingly and willfully cause mail to be delivered by the United
States Postal Service for the purpose of executing the scheme set forth in Section B, in violation of

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1346.

D. — Overt Acts
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish its purposes, the defendant, LORI M.

MARCOTTE, and others known and unknown to the United States Attomey, committed the
following overt acts, among others, in the Easter District of Louisiana and elsewhere:
1 Between 1998 and 2000, LORI M. MARCOTTE purchased automobile tires for

Deputy #2.
2. Inor about December 2001, LORI M. MARCOTTE gave Deputy #2 $130.00 in
cash to take several JPSO Deputies out for drinks at a restaurant in New Orleans.
3. In. 2001, LORI M. MARCOTTE gave Deputy #2 $150.00 in cash.
4, Beginning on February 20, 2002 and continuing until August 21, 2002, LORI M.

MARCOTTE paid for a cellular telephone for Deputy #3 at a total cost exceeding $700.00

16


1855

checking account to BBU in the amount of $5,000.00 and asecond check ftom his personal checking
account to Bail Bonds, Inc. for $5,000.00. Both checks were mailed to Bail Bondsman #1.

q. Between September 2000 and December 2002, at BBU's request, Judge A
split approximately 140 bonds and set approximately 268 bonds.

4. Altempts to Corruptly Influence Certain Other 24" JDC Judges

Beginning at a date unknown and continuing until the date of this bill of information,
LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III provided certain other 24" JOC Judges with things of value. In
retum, these judges were available to BBU; quickly responded to the requests of BBU; and set,

reduced, increased, and split bonds to maximize BBU’s profits, minimize BBU’s liability, and hinder

BBU’s competition.

5. Cormuption of Certain Sheriff's Deputies

a. Beginning at a date unknown but prior to 1991 and continuing until the date
of this bill of information, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, II and other employees of BBU made cash
payments to Deputy #1 and Deputy #2 in amounts ranging from $20.00 to $200.00 per occurrence.

b. Beginning on a date unknown and continuing until the date of this bill of
information, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III and other employees of BBU frequently purchased
meals for JPSO Deputies while they were on duty at the Intake and Booking Section of the Jefferson
Parish jail. :

c. Between 1995 and 1997, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III paid for two JPSO

Deputies to take a trip to Las Vegas, Nevada.
4. Inorabout 1997, aBBU employee gave Deputy #2 and several other deputies

‘watches that LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III had purchased on a trip to New York, New York.

e. In or about 1997, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III provided a JPSO Deputy
assigned to the Intake and Booking Section of the Jefferson Parish jail with the use of a vehicle at
no charge. Later that year, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III purchased a grey Nissan Maxima for that

deputy at a cost of approximately $1,800.00.


1634

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Standing Committee on
Federal fudiciary

Reply to: Williams & Connolly
725 12th St., N.W.
‘washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 434-5151

July 7, 1994

CONFIDENTIAL

Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
24th Judicial District Couct
Division "A"

Gretna Courthouse Annex Building
Second Floor, Room 200

Gretna, LA 70053

Dear Judge Porteous:

Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1994 end the
copy of your responses to the Personal Data Question-
naire.

I understand that you have also sent a copy of
your responses to Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esquire, who will
be conducting the investigation.

Mir. Walbolt will contact you in due course.

Sincerely yours,

(oeboate, Maths

Robert P. Watkins
hair

« awsnor pean ncneson, #84.
sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

PORTOOCOCO06S



1620

_ Tae ot Patton Reporting ‘Data of Report
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT (cont'd)

Porteous (Jr.), Gabriel T. 8-29-94

Vill, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION or EXPLANATIONS. Gadicate part of Report) ‘

(X. CERTIFICATION.

Ia compliance with the provisions of 28 US.C. § 455 and of Advisory Opinion No. 57 of the Advisory Committee oa
fudiclal Actives, and to the best of my knowledge at the time atter reasonable inquiry, I did not perform any adjudicatory
‘nction in any tigation during the period covered.by this report in which I, my spouse, or may mingr or dependent children
sad a financial interest, a3 defined in Canon 3C(3)(c), in the outcome of such ligation

| certify that all information givea above (cluding information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children,
f any) Is accurate, rue, and complete to the best of my Inowledge and bellet, and that any Information dot reported was
vithBeld becanse it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure,

[further ceri tht cared income from outside employment and hooraia andthe acceptince of gts which have bez
‘eported are in compliance SUSEA app 7,850 et ety § USC. $739 and Feel Coueese

‘egulations.

— Alas wep lass
fore aan nonmun, gs on a Toft snare

4AY BE SUBIECT TO wn one SANCTONS 6 U. 6 USCA AP. 18 USC § 1001)



1845

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F E |
is)

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

BILL OF INFORMATION FOR CONSPIRACY TO OPERATE © 3

AN ENTERPRISE THROUGH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING: | 3

ACTIVIT 5

eel

be}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . AL ayiica ie =
LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, Ill eo EO TR AS. ¢

LORIM. MARCOTTE

The United States Attorney charges that:

col INSPIRAC TO OFERAT NTE)
THROUGH A PATTERN OF CTIVITY

A. At All Times Material Herein:

1, Bail Bonds Unlimited, Inc. (hereinafter “BBU") was a bail bonds company licensed
and regulated by the Louisiana Department of Insurance (hereinafter “DOT”) and engaged in the
business of insurance, whose activities affected interstate commerce. Beginning in or about 1991
and continuing until the date of this bill of information, BBU provided commercial surety bail bonds

for individuals who had been arrested for crimes in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and elsewhere. BBU

HP Exhibit 71(a)


1741

underpowered and due to its lack of performance was not suited for its
: intended purpase.

As a consequence, a decision was reached by Bayliner that the boat
needed a new engine. The original power was a 260 horsepower O.M.C.
engine and Bayliner suggested that it be repowered with a 270 horsepower
Volvo-Penta engine unit. Plaintiffs’ expressed concem that this would not be
a significant enough change but was reassured that this was correct.
Nevertheless, Bayliner installed the 270 Volvo-Penta unit, at some expense to
plaintiffs. After the change, the boat still exhibited the same characteristics of
being extremely underpowered. Plaintiffs were still unable to use the vessel in
the gulf or any other recreational activity.

Discovery by plaintiffs, showed that Bayliner had identical problems with
other vessels and that the engine replacement in those vessels produced equally
unsatisfactory results.

Petitioners was also advised to try different propellers which they did at
their expense. Scott Key testified that he spent a minimum of $1,000.00
purchasing different propellers recommended by Bayliner, all to no avail.

Plaintiffs than engaged Mr. Gilligan, the original marine surveyor hired by
Bayliner, who conducted a survey on July 6, 1989. He conducted this survey
after the boat was repowered. Gilligan concluded that the: vessel would not
come to plane and that the hull was drastically underpowered.

Telephone communications between the parties continued through this
time, through November, December, and January. Suit was than filed in
February of 1990. .

At trial of this matter, Mr. Warren Wagnei, owner of Wagner Marine,
stated that the boat did not perform in arracceptable manner and that Bayliner
offered little cooperation in addressing the problem. Mr. Wagner testified-that

had he been aware of the actual performance of the vessel, he would never

PORTOOCO00176


1669

New Orleans, LA 70163
(04) 523-6451

2. William B.C : Truck Lines. I ic jal Uni
clw
illi im Oc ice, Inc. i iNeaw:
alty and Ww
Civil Action # 244-229, 24th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana
Division "A", Judge Roy Price

Trial on the merits, November 22nd & 23rd, 1982 ;
Chief Counsel for Plaintiff: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: This matter concerned a suit for personal injuries
resulting from an automobile accident. There were significant questions in regard
to: causation of the accident; the extent to which plaintiff's injuries were related
to the accident; and the amount of future wages that would justly compensate
plaintiff. Final Disposition: Judgment for plaintiff.

Co-Counsel:

Don Gardner

6380 Jefferson Hwy.
Harahan, LA 70123
($04) 737-6651

Opposing Counsel:
Rene A. Pastorek

Ste. 1060

3900 N.Causeway Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 831-3747

Wayne T. McGaw

365 Canal Street

Room 1870

New Orleans, LA 70140

PORTO00000104


C.Cr.P. Art. 893

execution or imposition of the sentence of a multiple
‘offender who has been convicted, in the instant of-
feose, of © violation of the ControUed Dangerous
Substances Law of Lousiana,’ other than the produc.
‘manufacture, distibutioa, or dispensing, of pos-
session with intent to produce, manufacture, disuibute,
oy epeee, fe mem ope with et 1

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1827

534
1955), which permined the sentencing judge 0 place
a delendant ion without ing

» OF 2 com
Eolled substance, and place the defendant
‘on probation if be intends to participate, and is accept-
ed, in a licensed suate or federal drug treatment pro-
gram, or if not immediately accepted, be receives
‘binding commitment from the appropriate official of a
censed state or federal drug treatment program that
the net srallabe spc nich progam willbe sven
however, if for any reason the
fers red oe pop, ee
program letion or ‘against
advice, be shall be retumed to the custody of the court
which imposed the seatence and the senteacing judge
shall order the sentence executed.
C._ If the seatence consists of both » fine and
it, the court thay impose the fine and
Sapend ibe venience ox pn the tendon robe
ne © te inprinaneat
‘Except as otherwise provided by law, the court
sal not sagen fay sens ae the defend
‘bas begua to serve the sentence,

23m
ge

uly

f

{

i

a

5
gs
ee

Eaysaay
a
z

subsequent prosecution of the party as
‘multiple offender, and further shall be considered a5 a

first offense for purposes of any other law of laws
Telzing to curation of offenses. Dismissal under
Paragraph shall occur only once with respect 10

&

any person.
F. Nothing coftained herein shall be construed. 2s
being 4 ta foe eoructon of records of i ret
‘and prosecution person convicted of

Arclied by ae 190 Bee Ts es 7A He
‘S14, $1; Acs 1978, No. 570, § 2; Acts 1980, No. 311,
4 2 1906, No. 70 § Is es 1987, Ne. $8, § I:
‘Acts 1987, No, 721, § 1; Acst 1991, No. 89,51; Acs
1991, No. 91, § 1; Acs 1992, No, 303,
RS, a6 ot 29,

OUiciat Revision Comment >
oats ri ees rine
fesencng fief etbrzed wo pend eer he
. or xen of entra when plang te
delete Zhe 140 bor

fimposidon of sea
‘RET eed pee Gee fot Glens Dao

RS. 15594), as sended by Act 360 of 1960; Acs 1966,
ener

‘Art. 893... Motion to invoke firearm sentencing pro-
vision

scl ttg diet some. intends to move for
‘Of sentence under the provisioas of Article

SSNS be tal Set won wits retonte ped

‘pf time prior to commencement of tral ofthe felony in

‘which the Grearm was used.

B, The motion shall comtain s plain, concise, and

definite written statement of the essential facts consti+

PORTOO0000676


1594

18. Litigation: Describe the ten most significant litigated matters which you
personally handled. Give the citations, if the cases were reported, and the
docket number and date if unreported. Give a capsule summary of the
substance of each case. Identify the party or parties whom you represented;
describe in detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the
final disposition of the case. Also state as to each case:

(a) the date of representation;

(b) the names of the court and name of the judge or judges before whom the
case was litigated; and

(c) the individual names, addresses, and telephone numbers of co-counsel
and of principal counsel for each of the other parties.

1. jon C v. , et al
Civil Action 75-2249, U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist. of Louisiana
Section "C", Honorable Alvin Rubin ;

This matter was tried for the most part; a settlement was reached during trial and
an agreement to dismiss was filed prior to rendition of judgment, August 9, 1976.

Capsule summary of case: Ship collision. [ handled this case through all pre-trial
discovery and pleadings and participated in all conferences with Judge Alvin Rubin
with respect to the case. The dock was constructed by my clients, Tellepsen
Construction Company and Lagradeur International. This case was noteworthy
because it was major litigation involving issues of negligence, and limitation and
remoteness of damage claims.

Final Disposition: ‘Settled to my clients’ satisfaction.

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Counsel for Tellepsen Construction Co. & Lagradeur International
(Sole Counsel)

Opposing Counsel:

Terriberry, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell

Walter Carroll, Jr.(retired)
3100 Energy Centre

14

PoRTOO0000029


1796

FD~303 (Rev. 3-10-42)

we

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date ef wanserprion __ 8/28/94

Judge THOMAS PORTEOUS, Louisiana State Court Judge for
the 24th gudieial District, was interviewed in his office located
in Gretna, Louisiana (IA), regarding information received from
confidential source, NO T-6, on August 8, 1994.

PORTEOUS stated that he was somewhat aware o:
nature of the inquiry due to
QD, having been. interviewed by this interviewing A: ‘on
Previous day. Sa

had related to Judge PORTEOUS a summation of
. PORTEOUS was initially asked if he recalled
having been involved in a bond reduction matter for a criminal
defendant named who was arrested by the Jef
Parish Sheriff’s Office on a cocaine. charge in March, 1987.
PORTEOUS could not specifically recall a bond reduction
matter involving this named individnal, but after being provided
with some of the information obtained from NO T-6, PORTEOUS
seemed to recall that this individual, who already had an
extensive criminal history involving narcotics violations, had a
very high bond initially set. Upon request from the arresting
officer or possibly Deputy Chief RICHARD RODRIGUE, who is in
charge of Criminal Detectives for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s
Department (JPSD), he reluctantly agreed to reduce the bond.
PORTEOUS stated that ir the incident that he is recalling is in
fact an incident that involved the named subject,
the agreement to reduce the bond was based on reporting from a

JPSD ofticer that

PORTEOUS further stated that if this was
the inciaent he is attempting to recall, then Assistant District
Attorney PAT MC GINNITY, (who is currently: in private practice as
a criminal defense attorney, with office located on Girod Street,
lew Orleans, LA, telephone would have been
involved in the bond reduction discussion. PORTEOUS stated that
it is routine for the prosecuting attorney along with the
arresting officer to be involved in a discussion regarding any
bond reduction: S could not recall any involvement of a
in monetary transactions regarding the
reduction. Furthermore, PORTEOUS categorically denied that

Tavestigation on _ 8/18/94 + Gretna, Louisiana 5 rie 77A-HO- © __

sa s Jain. Deiedisetd 9/18/94

‘This document contains acither recommendations yor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property af the FBI and ts loaned to your agency:
ts conteats ate not to be datcibuted outside your ageasy.

PORTOO0000492


ew ne

~ aw

1804

MR.

PROCEEDINGS

TOSE:

I'm Joseph Tosh and I represent Aubry
Wallace. Mr. Wallace would withdraw his
former plea of not guilty’ and enter a plea

of guilty to the amended charge of simple

burglary.

PORTOO00006


16.

1590

records admissible. Remanded.

Markey_v. Howard, 484 So.2d 165, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1986). Jury’s
assessment of 30% negligence to plaintiff driver was manifestly erroneous.
Appellate Court removed this allocation, in all other particulars affirmed.

(3) citations for significant opinions on federal or state constitutional issues,
together with the citation to appellate court rulings on such opinions. If any
of the opinions listed were not officially reported, please provide copies. of
the opinions.

, 472 So.2d 85, (La. App 5 Cir., June,1985);
492. So.2d 1215
, 498 So.2d 103, (La. App 5 Cir., Nov.,1986);
writ denied 532 So.2d 113
State v. Antoinne Williams, 483 So.2d 626, (La. App 5 Cir., Feb.,1986)
State v, Nolan Grant, 517 So.2d 1151, (La. App 5 Cir., Dec.,1987)

State v,.Karen Copeland, 631 So.2d 1223, (La. App. 5 Cir, Jan.,1994)
545 So.2d 651, (La. App. 5 Cir.) writ denied 556

So.2d 33 and 584 So.2d “1157

State v. Jessie Head, 598 So.2d 1202, (La. App. 5 Cir., April,1992)
State v. Lane Nelson, 105 S.Ct 2050; 459 So.2d 510; post conviction
rellef

See Attachment “B-3"

Public office: State (chronologically) any public offices you have held, other
than judicial offices, including the terms of service and whether such
positions were elected or appointed. State (chronologically) any unsuccessful
candidacies for elective public office.

Special Counsel, Attorney General 9/10/71 - 10/7/73
State, of Louisiana
Assistant District Attorney 2/1/73 - 8/6/84

Parish of Jefferson

Both were appointed positions

10

PORTGOOO00025


1673

Defense Counsel:
Phil Johnson
(inactive)

(714) 275-6066

7. isiana v. J
Criminal #71-1081, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "A", Judge Louis DeSonier
Citation: 318 So.2d 27 (LA 1975)

Jury Trial, April 10, 11th, 1972.

Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule ‘summary of case: Defendant charged with: Murder. This was the first
capital case I tried. The trial involved complex issues of law and fact.

Final Disposition: Jury verdict - Guilty of Murder, Death Sentence; Supreme

Court - Affirmed conviction, death sentence annulled and set aside per: Furman
y. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238; remanded, sentenced to life in prison.

Defense Counsel:
Philip Schoen Brooks
723 Hillary St.
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 866-6666
8. State v. Christopher J, Rebstock
Criminal # 82-67, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "A", Judge Roy A. Price
Citation: 413 So.2d 510, (April, 1982); 418 So.2d 1306, (La. Sept 1982)
Motion to Suppress Confession: April 13, 1982.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: 2nd Degree Murder. The case
involved a sixteen year old. Issues of law involving the statements he made to

12

PORTOO0000108


1730

of the escrowed fee, FORTY THOUSAND ($40,000.00) DOLLARS.

THOMAS CEAULLO, is also awards the initial cost of filing the suit.
IT1S FURTHER ORDER, ADJUOGED, AND DECREED that each party

shall bear his own cost in this matter, and that interest is adjudged in proportion

to the respective award.

JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED, and SIGNED this. JE day of

1992. Gretna, Louisiana.

JUDG

PoRTOOGG00165


1733

lack of candor and his failure to propedy communicate with his client
contributed to the mistake in judgment mada by Mrs. Watts.

Mrs. Watts related how, on more than one occasion, Mr. Cerullo advised
her of arrangements and appointments with medical professionals,
appointments which caused her to miss work and Polly to miss school.
However, when she arrived for the medical appointments, she discovered that
Mc. Cerullo had failed to follow through on the arrangements and Polly was not
seen by the doctor.

Judith Watts testified that she began keeping a written log of
representations made to her by her attorney, because, as she put it, he changed
stories so frequently that she thought she was lasing her mind.

Mrs. Watts testimony described numerous other dubious actions by Mr,
Cerullo which brought her to the point of consulting the Bar Association to
determine what could be done about the situation.

The Court is of the opinion that Mrs. Watts was a very credible witness
and finds that she had ample cause to discharge Mr. Cerullo ag her attorney.

Having found that Mr. Cerullo was discharged for cause, the claim for
attorney fees is relegated to quantum meruit.

Mr. Carullo filed a seven paragraph petition on the day the case would
have prescribed. The petition was never served on defendants. This is his only

document in the record,

in total, Mr. Cerullo mailed eight letters to the insurer, Liberty Mutual,
during the three years he represented the Watts. The last fetter dated
March 27, 1986, contained a demand for $175,000.00 to settle the claim.
‘The demand was rejected and a counter offer of $15,500.00 was made by the
insurer in August, 1986. At this point the lawsuit went unserved. When Mr.
Cerullo was discharge in January of 1987, some nine months after his demand

and five months after the counter offer of $15,500.00, service had not been

3

PORTO00000168


1737

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be
judgment against defendant, Bayliner Marine Corporation, in favor of
petitioners, Kenneth Poche and Scott Key, reimbursing petitioners for various
expenses incurred by them resulting from their ownership of the vessel in the
sum of FOURTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY THREE and 04/100

($14,433.04) DOLLARS plus judicial interest from date of judicial demand.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be
judgment in favor of petitioners, Kenneth Poche and Scott Key, and against
defendant, Bayliner Marine, in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND
($20,000.00) DOLLARS plus judicial interest from date of demand as
consequential damages incurred for inconvenience, aggravation, and loss of use
cesuiting from repeated attempts to have the defects in the boat corrected and
petitioners’ inability to use the boat for the purpose intended for the four year

period.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be
judgment against defendant, Bayliner Marine Corporation, in favor of
petitioners, Kenneth Poche and Scott Key, in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND
{$20,000.00} DOLLARS for reasonable attorneys fees, plus expert fees in this
matter which are set at ONE THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS per expert and

Judicial interest from date af demand for all professional costs and fees

incurred.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant,

Bayliner Marine Corporation, be taxed with all cost of these proceedings.

IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGEO AND DECREED that there be

judgment in favor of defendant, Wagner Marine, Inc., and against the

PORTO00000172


1602

Capsule summary of case: Suit to collect for appraisal fees. Motion for summary
Judgment on behalf of my client Jon-T Chemicals alleging the doctrine of accord
and satisfaction. The case was noteworthy because it was handled in an expedient

manner via summary judgment.

Final Disposition: Summary judgment granted; Court of Appeals - Affirmed.

Opposing Counsel:
Thomas Loop
(deceased)

Additionally, the following ten individuals have recently dealt with me on legal

matters within the last five years:

Scott W. McQuaig
1500 One Galleria Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70001
(504) 836-5070

Edward J. Rice, Jr.
4500 One Shell Square
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 581-3234

Lawrence J. Centola, Jr.
650 Poydras St., Ste. 2100
New Orleans, LA 70130
(604) 523-1385

Raymond A. Pelleteri

1539 Jackson Ave., 6th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 561-5000

Jay Zainey

2543 Metairie Road
Metairie, LA 70001
(504) 831-6766 -

22

PORTO00000037


1743

_ at less than full throttle and had essentially no cruising capabilities. Therefore,
the vessel is not useable, not only because it couldn’t attain the speed the
literature claimed, but also because of these other unacceptable characteristics.

Our Louisiana Civil Code provides for rescission of a sale through
redhibition. This is defined in LSA C.C. Article 2520, which states:

“the avoidance of a sale on account of some vice ar defect

in the thing sald, which renders it either absolutely

useless, of its use sa inconvenient and imperfect, that

it must be supposed that the buyer would not have purchased

it, had he known of the vice."

The boat in the instant matter has proven virtually useless for the
plaintiffs’ purpose. Not only does the boat fail to attain the speed it originally
claimed, it also performs poorly and uses an extraordinary amount of fuel,

When the seller does not know of the vices in the thing he sold, he is
only bound to repair, remedy, or correct the vices. If he is unable to or fails to
repair, remedy or correct the vices, then he must restore the purchase price,
and reimburse the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale, as weil as those
expenses incurred for the preservation of the thing. LSA C.C. Article 2531

When a seller knows of the defect in the thing sold and omits to reves!
this information to the purchaser, the seller becomes liable to the purchaser not
‘only for the restitution of the price and repayment of the expenses, but also for
attorney's fees and is’ answerable to the buyer in damages. LSA C.C. Article
2545. :

Plaintiffs made aumerous request to Wagner Marine and, although not
required to do so, gave the manufacturer an opportunity to correct the defects,
In the case of a manufacturer, it is presumed to know the defect in the thing
which it manufactures and consequently, is considered a bad faith seller, liable
for damages and attorney's fees in addition to the price and expenses in

connection with the sale. Oickerson v. Beanaud Motors Inc., 446 So2d 536,
(3rd Cir. App. 1984); Reid v. Leson Chevrolet Co, inc., 542 So2d 673, (5th Cir.

* PORTOO0000178


1844

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/15/2008 09:35:10

[PACER Login: [ad0011

[Client Code:

222.22222/}i

[Description: [Docket Report}/Search Criteria:

[2:04-cr-00061-GPK]

[Bilable Pages: [4

[Cost:

132

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/ogi-bin/DktRpt pl?923498370931478-L_567_0-1

10/15/2008


1799

INTELLIGENCE REPORT

‘CONFIDENTIAL

November 9, 1994

SUBJECT: (1) AUBRY WALLACE N/M QB
(2) LOUIS MARCOTTE
(3) JUDGE THOMAS G. PORTEOUS, JR.
(4) BAIL BONDS UNLIMITED

REPORTED SY: SD

On November 8, 1994, at 3:25 p. m. Rafael C. Goyeneche, III
and Anthony Radosti met with Federal Judge Thomas G. Porteous in
his chambers which are located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans,

Louisiana.

Upon arrival we advised Judge Porteous that the purpose of our
meeting was to question hin regarding his amendment of the Aubry N.
Wallace sentence (State of Louisiana vs. Aubry Wallace,
89-2360-A, 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana). In particular we advised Judge Porteous that ve wanted
to ask him about his relationship with Louis Marcotte. Mr.
Marcotte ie the owner of Bail Bonds Unlimited and Mr. Wallace’s

Page 1 of 4
PORTOO0000594


22.

1683

b. Describe any claim or lawsuit which alleged an act or omission by
you as a lawyer.

Not applicable.

c, . Have you ever been sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11 or pursuant to any
other federal, state or local rule?

No.

Have you ever been a party or otherwise involved in any other legal
proceedings? If so, give the particulars. Do not list proceedings in which
you were merely a guardian ad litem or stakeholder. Include all legal
proceedings in which you were a party in interest, testified as a witness,
were named as a co-conspirator or a co-respondent, and any grand jury
investigation in which you figured as a subject, or in which you appeared
as a witness.

fark, etal v
# 86-435, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Suit challenging the method of election of judges in Louisiana. All judges
were sued as nominal parties; we were sued in our official capacity.
Resolution: Jefferson Parish, the 24th Judicial District Court, established
sub-districts wherein an individual candidate runs, as opposed to ruining
throughout the entire parish as was previously the procedure.

District digent di te

# 413-728, 24th Judicial District Court
Declaratory judgment on constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 15:144(B)(D). All
judges were sued, we were sued in our official capacity.

Resolution: Supreme Court issued a TRO and remanded to lower court. At
the request of the Chief Justice and all interested parties, we have deferred
further proceedings pending resolution by the legislature.

PORTO00000118


1833

FO-S02s (Rev, 11-18-83)

TTA-HQ- F

etrpso2e GABRIEL THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. 0u_1/5 6248/5

PORTEOUS advised that he has seen a plastic surgeon f
surgery on his ear whose name is Dr. GUSTAVE COLON. He said his
inte st is Dr. ROBERT SONGY

RTEOUS provided the supplement to his SF-86 with
Attachmente Te 2 to the interviewing Agents. | PORTEOUS signed an
FD-465, Medical Release Form, at this t. Also provided to the
Agents was a copy of certification from chief Disciplinary
Counsel, Louisiana State Bar Association, stating that there is
ho pending or past record of any complaint, grievance, —
disciplinary action, or disciplinary proceeding against-PoRTEOUS.


1762

15) The trial court failed to guide the jury
regarding the function to be played by
mitigating circumstences in determining
what sentence to recommend.

16) Petitioner's sentence is excessive and

disproportionate and cruel and unusval.

17) Petitioner's sentence is arbitrary and
capricious.

18) Petitioner's sentence is invidiously
discriminatory.

19) Capital punishnent is an excessive
penalty.

20) ‘The cumulative effect of violations

of petitioner's rights is in itself a
violation of petitioner's constitutional

rights.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

on July 23, 1981, at ebout 7:00 P.t., 2 traffic
accident occurred on Interstate 10 in Madison County,
Florida, Trooper Homer Melgaard investigated the accident,
which involved a disabled truck hit in the rear by.an
automobile, despite the truck driver's efforts to flag
traffic. Witnesses at the scene advised Trooper Melgard
that eo men walking down the road had been in the
automobile, One of them, Lane C. Nelson, was arrested for
operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcoholic
beverages and both he and his companion, Robert Wihelm, were
taken to the Madison County jail. Because Trooper Melgaard
had to wait for a wrecker, the three of them reached the
jail between 8:30 and 8:45 P.M, Melgaard requested a
breathalyzer test on Nelson which showed a .24 reading. In
the course of doing his paperwork on the accident report,
trooper Melgaard engaged Nelson in a general conversation
and inguired about the owership of the vehicle. Nelson
said he had borrowed the rented automobile from a friend in

-~3-

PORTOO0000197


1831

FD-s02a (Rev. 1-18-83)

ee

‘Couttuates of FD-102o¢ GABRIEL THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. .on_7/6 & 7/8/9h4__3

PORTEOUS said he is not concealing any activity or
conduct that could be used to influence, pressu1 coerce, or
compromise him in any way or that would’ impact negatively on the
candidate’s character, reputation, judgement, or discretion.

PORTEOUS stated that he has had no professional
complaints or any non-judicial disciplinary action against him,
to include Bar Association grievances, Better Business Bureau
complaints, student or military disciplinary proceedings, Equal
Enployment Opportunity complaints, and Office of Professional
Responsibility inguiris id that in his official
capacity, he, along wi the 24th Judicial District
Court, was sued by SHURMAINE DE GRANGE and IDA WILLIAMS for
alleged discrimination. He said that both petitioners were
former employees of the late Judge LIONEL COLLINS. The suit is
referred to in PORTEOUS’ supplemental SF-86.

PORTEOUS advised that he is not involved in any
business or investment circumstances that could or have involved
conflicts of interest allegations.

PORTEOUS said that he has had no psychological
counseling with psychiatrists, psychologists, or other qualified
lors, including marital counselors.

id that he has not abused alcohol or
prescription drugs or used illegal drugs, to include marijuana,
during his entire adult life. He has had no participation in

drug or alcohol counseling/rehabilitation programs since age 18.

PORTEOUS

PORTEOUS advised that he has had no involvement in any
organization which advocates the use of force to overthrow the
U.S. Government or any involvement in the comission of sabotage,
espionage, or assistance of others in any of these acts.
PORTEOUS knows of no current or past circumstances that could
have a bearing on his suitability for Federal employment or
access to classified information.

PORTEOUS advised that he has no current membership in
any organization or social/private club which restrict membership
on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
PORTEOUS currently is a member of the following: American Bar
Association, Jefferson Bar Association, American Judges



1825

$27 SENTENCING IN GENERAL

. ‘Official Revision Comment
= _ (@) The first semenee, taken trom Fed. Rel 35,
sell

ated Stace, 350 US: 1, 67 SO 80, ST LES

C.CrP, Art. $83.1

Procedure, Under this article the judge lias express ~

authority exists when sentences for several offenses
are imposed at the same tite, and to when sem-
tence for a new conviction is ‘on a defen
ant who has already been sentenced for a prior
conviction,

‘When the court does not direct whether

Of the trial co
Reteution of the trial judge's power to correct an,
sentence after an appeal has been taken
‘8 very Under the well-

(©) The methods of review sated in this article
are retained from An. 527 of the 1928 Code.

: ‘inadteat and Starry Noes
Soares

‘Fed.Rule 35: former RS. 15577; Act 1966, No. 310, § 1.
‘Art. 883, Concurrent and consecutive sentences

If the defendant is coavicted of two of more offenses

Smprscament shal be served
directs that some or all be served
Otter sentences of imprisonment stall
te served Saccutely unies he cour expressy d
tects that some or all of them be served concurrently.

Konded y Aes 997 Ne 397 $2

Officio! Revisloa Comment
, Th srrencing judge's gener acho to impose
sent

senuences Is found in some states. People v. Ezel

3B, MAM 125 (899); in ce Back. ONC. 487, 78
SE 73 (913 State v, McKellar, 85 S.C. 236, 67

. SERS (1910).
[If the convictions are for offenses which do not

Source
‘Aes 1966. No, 310, 5

Ast, 883.1. Sentences concurrent with sentences of
other jurisdictions

A. The sentencing court may specify that the sen-
tence imposed be served concirrently with a sentence
imposed by a federal court ors court of any other state
and that service of the concurrent terms of imprison-
‘ment in 2 federal correctional institution: or a corres-
tioual institution of another state shall be in satistac-
tion of the sentence imposed in this stare in the
manner and to the same extent as if the defendant had
been commited to the Louisiana sat of Public
Safery and Corrections for the term of years served in
a federal correctional insticution or a correctional inst
tation of another state, serving a concyrrent
sentence in a federal correctional institution or a cor
rections) instirution of another state, the defendant
shall receive credit for time served as allowed under
the laws of this state,

B. Whenever sentence is imposed under the provi-
sions of this Article, the court shall order that the
defendant be remanded to the custody of he sheriff of
the parish in which the conviction was had in the eveat
that the terms of imprisonment to which the defendant
is sentenced in the foreign jurisdiction terminates prior
1 the date on which the sentence imposed in this staze
is to terminate,

PORTO00000674


1840

U.S. Attorney's Office
Hale Boggs Federal Bldg.

500 Poydras St.

Room 210

New Orleans, LA 70130
504-680-3000

Email: usalae.ecfer@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Loan Mimi Tuong Nguyen
U.S. Attomey's Office

500 Poydras St.

Room 210

New Orleans, LA 70130
504-680-3076

Email: usalae.ecfer@usdoj gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

Docket Text

03/03/2004

INFORMATION by USA against Louis M Marcotte (1) count(s) 1, Lori M
Marcotte (2) count(s) 2 (jd) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/03/2004

. |M Marcotte by Judge Helen G. Berrigan (originally docketed 3/16/04) (id)

MOTION filed by plaintiff USA and ORDER to SEAL the bill of information,
factual bases, and plea agreements as to defendants Louis M Marcotte III, Lori

(Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/04/2004

LETTER from Chief Judge Berrigan USDC to Chief Judge Carolyn King of the
USCA dated 3/3/04 advising Judge King that all judges of the EDLA who have
criminal docket have recused themselves from this matter (jd) (Entered:
03/17/2004)

03/04/2004

ORDER that Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill of the Western District of La. is
assigned to conduct proceedings and perform all duties permitted pursuant to
USC 636 as may be required. This assignment shall be for the duration of the
case. by Judge Helen G. Berrigan (originally docketed 3/16/04) (jd) (Entered:
03/17/2004)

03/05/2004

ORDER designating and assigning this matter to Judge George P. Kazen,
District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, and to Magistrate Judge C.
Michael Hill of the Westefn District of Louisiana, to conduct all proceedings in
this matter by Chief Judge Carolyn King, USCA Date Signed: 3/4/04
(originally docketed 3/16/04) (jd) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/11/2004

ORDER that Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill recuses himself in this matter.
by Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill Date Signed: 3/10/04 (originally docketed
3/16/04) (id) (Entered: 03/17/2004)

03/15/2004

NR

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson of the Souther District of
‘Texas is assigned to conduct proceedings and perform all duties permitted

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?923498370931478-L_567_0-1 10/15/2008


1793

JUL-22-1994 10:21 FRE FBI NEW ORLEANS SQUAD 7 TO ent FPS.

(Attachment 1 continued)

# 89-3535, U. istcict Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

All-judges were sued in their official and individual capacity. Petitioners,
Shurmaine De Grange and Ida Williams alleged discrimination, Both
petitioners were former employees of the late Judge Lionel Collins, After
his death, De Grange, his former law clerk, alleged she was not hired as a
hearing officer in Domestic Court because of discrimination, Ida Williams,
his former sécretary, alleged discrimination because her services were not
retained by the newly elected judge of the division.

Resolution: The matter was settled without any admission of liability or
responsibility. .

PORTOGCOOO300


"Contributory negligence is a defense to a tort suit
and it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove that
the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Tucker

v. Lixette, 400 So. 2d 647 (La. 1981). A guest
Passenger owes a duty to herself to ascertain that

she can safely disembark from an automobile. Contrary
to the contention of the defendants and the instruction
given by the trial judge to the jury in the instant
case, this duty does not encompass a responsibility to
notify the driver of a stopped vehicle of her intention
to alight from the vehicle. Our review of the record
reveals nothing which would indicate that plaintife
could not have made a safe exit absent Krushin‘s
negligent conduct.“

The court finds in the instant case that Stanton Stark
@id not breach any duty owed to himself and finds the jury was
clearly wrong in finding Stanton Stark FIPTY-SIX (56%) PERCENT
at fault and assesses ONE HUNDRED (100%) PERCENT of the fault to
Steven Douglas.

As to the jury's finding that Stanton Stark assumed the
risk of injury, the court likewise is of the opinion that the
jury's verdict is without any reasonable basis and clearly wrong.
Defendants have previously filed a motion to enter judgment in
accordance with the jury interrogatories. In determining the
dollar figure to be placed on the jury verdict, this court held
that the adoption of a system of comparative fault entailed the
merger of assumption of risk into the general scheme of assessment
of ldability in proportion to fault. Therefore, the net effect
of Article 2323, as amended, is to prevent the courts from

applying any defense more injurious to a damage claim than
Wheel Blast, (La. 1985)

comparative negligence. See Bell

462 So. 2d 166..
Aside from the court's opinion that defendants aren't

legally entitled to the defense of assumption of the risk and
viewing the evidence most favorable to defendant, the court
finds tNat the facts of the instant case do not warrant a finding
of assumption of the risk and the jury's finding on this point is
without a reasonable basis in fact.

In accordance with Article 1811 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted

on the issue of liability or om both issues.

F204
PORTOGOGCO139


1745

NOT DESIGNATED
FOR, PUBLICATION

IN THE MATTER OP THE WRONGFUL * Wo. 86-CA-34
DEATH OF STANTON J. STARK

. Court OP APPEAL

* PIPTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-POURTH JODICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
ROMBER 263-171, DIVISION “A”

HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR., JUDGE

CHARLES GRISBAUM, JR.

JODGE

JUN 9 2 1986

(Court composed of Judges Lawrence A. Chehardy, Thomas J. Kliebert,
and Charles Grisbaum, Jr.)

W. PAUL ANDERSSON, for appellant
& BAMMETT

HAMMETT, LEAKE &
2500 Canal Place One
Yew Orleans, Louisiana 70130-1193

EDWARD M. GORDON ITT, for appellees
4141 Veterans Boulevard, Suite 214
Metairie, Louisiana 70002 .

JOHN R. STARK, for appellees
IN PROPER PERS

3909 Lafreniere Street
Metairie, Louisiana 70003

AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, APPTRMED

*  PORTOC0000180


1857

and provided the unlimited use of a cellular telephone in order to influence Crosby to illegally use
the National Crime Information Center's computer data base to locate and identify fugitives released
‘on bail bonds written by BBU to facilitate their apprehension and thereby obviate costly bond
forfeitures which inured to the financial benefit of BBU and/or MARCOTTE.

6. The Fraud Acainst Amwest

a Inorabout December 1999, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III and others known:
tothe United States Attorney, sought to withdraw approximately $650,000.00 from the BUF account
held in trust with Amwest in order to expand his bail bond business to other states. To do so,
Amwest required MARCOTTE to substitute real property having equity of approximately

$650,000.00 to collateralize the BUF.
b. On.or about December 20, 1999, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III and others

known to the United States Attomey, mailed a letter to Amwest enclosing a fraudulent real estate
appraisal dated December 16, 1999 onhis personal residence indicating it was worth approximately
800,000.00 when in fact MARCOTTE and others known to the United States Attomey, well knew
that itwas worth significantly less than $800,000.00. Additionally, MARCOTTE and others known
to the United States Attomey, in the same mailing, sent Amwest an Act of Mortgage for $700,000.00
on his personal residence knowing that the actual unencumbered value of his residence wes
significantly less, all designed to induce Amwest to release approximately $500,000.00 from the
BUF to BBU.

c.
made payable to BBU in the sum of $400,000.00. This letter further referenced an earlier

On or about December 28, 1999, Amwest mailed a letter enclosing a check

disbursement by Amwest in the form of a $100,000.00 check dated December 6, 1999 made payable
to BBU, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, If and others known to the United States Attomey deposited

those checks into the accounts of BBU.
d On or about December 29, 1999, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, II] and others

known to the United States Attomey mailed a letter through a private interstate carrier to Amwest

13


1626

Arce Bang Fentnoure
“xo rd Aen
Sea

Cadi © Chao

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Standing Committee on
Federal judiciary

Reply to: Williams & Connolly
725 12th St., NW.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 434-5151

June 29, 1994

CONFIDENTIAL

sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel,
Smith & Cutler, P.A.

Barnett Tower, Suite 2300

One Progress Plaza

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

RE: HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
United states District Court
ste: 9: isi

Dear sylvia:

You will have received copies of Eleanor Dean
Acheson's letters of June 28, 1994 to me and Judge
Porteous in connection with his candidacy for appoint-
ment to the United States District Court for the Bast-
ern District of Louisiana.

I have written to Judge Porteous as per the en-
closed letter, pointing out that our investigation will
not begin until we receive his responses to the person-
al Data Questionnaire.

After receipt of Judge Porteous’ responses, please
make your usual inquiries and proceed’ in the usual
manner.

Sincerely yours,

Kbit? Wafers

Robert P. Watkins
Chair

Enclosute
ce: odfenor Dean Acheson, Esq.
PORTOO0000061


1680

New Orleans, LA 70170
(504)582-1503

Philip C. Ciaccio

10555 Lake Forest Blvd.
New Orleans, LA

(904) 241-9150

8) unn_v. Kei i 4» 625 So.2d 672,
(La.App. 5 Cir., Oct., 1993)

Charles F. Gay, Jr.
Cristina R.Wheat

4500 One Shell Square
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504)581-3234.

Margaret Hammond
639 Loyola Ave.

New Orleans, LA

(504)581-6503

(O) mn. i ter y. 1
aL, App. # 93-CA-811, (La. App 5 Cir.,Feb.,1994) (Not designated for
publication)

Patrick J. Sanders

3200 Ridgelake Drive, Suite 100
Metairie, LA 70002

(604) 834-0646

Daniel J, Markey, Jr.
5559 Canal Blvd.

‘New Orleans LA 70124
(04)482-4566

(10) Kenneth Poche and Scott Key v. Bayliner Marine Corporation and Wagner
Marine, Inc., 1994 WL 34062, ___ So.2d_, (La. App. 5 Cir. ,Feb.,1994)

19

PORTO00000115


1644

©.4q Qni9 843 03 enp sassauperaepul Liv “SuNaMONIT30
“XT NOLLI3S

“pred uaaq aaey tLeys qni9

2y2 03 Ssaupayqaput [Le pu £uezas995 ayy 0} papuey
uaaq eAeY LLBYS UOLzeUb}sa4 |y7 YOLYM GuLAnp uazagnb
Buypaasons yxau aya 30 Aep 3sa4j aya Uo 9A}300352
‘suodaq [Leus UoLzeUBLsa4 ay, “GnLD 243 03 anp sseupa
~299pUL {Le pyed 4si1j aaey (Leys Jaquau Susubyseu ayy
$58(UN pezd|a2de aq [[PYS UOLZeUBLSe4 ON “SHOTLUNDISIY

“ILIA NOTL9aS

“@AYSMLoUOD pue LeULs Bq LLEYS SYOLIIYIG JO CyvOR 243
40 UOLZDe SUL "GuYVOs 243 40 Suaquaw |Yz 40 (spie/z)
SP4LU3-0MZ JO 830A e UOdN ydaDxa SYOLIIYIG 40 O¥VOR
343 £q paounouosd 9q [Leys UoLs[ndxs wo uoLsuadsns 30
BouezUaS OU 3eYI PapLAoad $qN[} ay2 40 UOLqeINdad 10
@4eg lan S4ap4o poo yz 0} [eqUaWLAZ—P st cuYOR 242
40 uotujdo 43 UL YoryM yanpUCD 4oy siequaw [edxe pue
puadsns ‘eansua> 0} siamod 243 u31m peasen aq [LEYS
SYOLIFUIG 4O CYVOS PUL “SNOISTAGXA CNY SHOISN3dSNS

“ITA NO1LI3S

* s¥o193¥T0

40 GUVOR 243, Aq paze6,nwosd pue pagdope suo} ze |nbay
pue sainy 243 Aq wuz uany6 aq Kew se selzi{toe} 42430
pue 9s.uno> 4106 ‘asnougnly ay3 40 asn pue sabaljalad
WMS |ARY [LEYS dryssaquaw Jo sasset> {LY “S303 TIAIUd

“IA NOILD3S

“why 02 passauppe
aouapuodsauds Aq uopqeoi ide $14 Jo uoisod

“SEP 8U3 40 pauMoju; aq [Leys BauiwoU Yate 4ey3 yd0%0
*SU0L3e4aqi [ap 3Y7 40 Ka129s 243 andasedd 03 323

3 ulwod Suo$ss{upy 243 40 Jaquaw Yoea pue [toUuNeJ"gnL3
843 Jo aaquew Yea Jo uoLze61 {go a49 aq [Leys 31 pue
e2uap} yur 358321435 ut day aq {Leys diysasquau 405
Wo, ge2} [dde UP Jo Uo} zetepLsuO> Bu;parber 99331mu0)
Suo}ssiupy ay pue [{oUNOD qn{> ay{y e4049q s6u;pasoad
Liv ‘*dyysuaquaw 20j uolze9} [dde 's, eeuLwou a4} 30afaa

do qda22e {Leys ‘230A ArLuofew Aq: $9933 {UNO sUoJssjuL
~Py PUL 8273 {wHOD SUOLSSLUpyY B47 03 sues ay2 Lent fp
~ LLRs OU *{FOUNED gMLD BY} JO UEUAPeUD a47 O7 OMS
943 JOA} Lap LLeys Jabeuey [eiauag qniy 243 ‘diysveqggu
40} uo19eo1 \dde peub}s “payaiduo> ayy yo ydjaDe4 way

Ss
pieog uia1 Fae

nig 243 uo saasodoud siy pur aueu s,aouiwou 2u2 3)
LUEYS pue ‘dpysuequew Jos uoLqvO} Ldde Ue aaujwou 243%
LyeW [Leys Ja6eueH [erate qn) au; ‘s.19349| Sujpuosss
Pauinbas BY} pUe UOFZBULWOU Jo 49379, e JO ydyeD94 UodN

saBejsuew Aq 40 poog Aq aaujuou yons 03
pegeias qou sue foug yey9 pur voLgeyndas Jo Jez2eueYD
Le4ou poob 40 2q 03 why Mouy AdYR 9R4I UNI ZIe IShU
5813426 Gujpuos9s ayy 4o BuO 3sea] 4” pur JOzeULWOU
YL *EE2UNO) gnl9 yA 30 JaquEU B Bq 4SMw WOU Jo omy
“Suaquou uvinbay 4ayjo easy Aq papuozes oq 3smu fay3
pur JeBeuey [esauay qnig' ay} 03 passauppe ‘GulzLum ut
9q 3SMu SUO}zeU;WON “Usquaul Ueinbey e Aq apew aq 3snuL
dpysdequem oJ suofqeujwou Ly "dIHSYIEW3M OL NOTLIIII

“A NOLES

“paLLeasu} pue paa2a12 S| 4ossazons siy {paun
uans se angas [Leys ay pue {L9UN0D qni 243 Jo sbuLzeeu
{Le uano apyseud [Leys LUN] qNLD ay} Jo WeMI}eYD sus

. +4890390 30 UaUOW e42 BULanp play
q LLeUS YDtA *1y2uN09 qn{9 ay2 Jo Buyaeu [enue aya.
V8 pez9L9 Eq LLEYS [IDUNOD qNLD B43 JO URMIyEYD ayL

. “S¥OLIZYIG 30 GyvoE #42
Aq pahoues sj 40 suBysaa ay [pauN YAS Se and9s |Leys

PUR SYOLIIYIG’ JO GuvOE 243 Aq Pazutodde eq L(eys sequau
yoe3 “Buypuezs ‘pooh uj suequew (/) uanes 30 4sjsu0>
Lieys Yo}yM [JouNoD antD e aq LLeUS e4auL —“ZDNNOD NTO

“AL NOLLOGS

“SYOLIZUIG 40 dUVOS 2U9 Aq paxts 2q LLeYs saaJ Jayj0 pur
Bas UOLZEIZIUL *sanp (enue ay. °S334 ONY S3N0 TYANNY

*IIT NOTL93S


1596

Wayne T. McGaw

365 Canal Street

Room i870

New Orleans, LA 70140
(504) 528-2058

3. State of Louisiana y, John J, Storms. 1.
Criminal # 79-1114, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "M“, Judge Robert J. Bums

Citation: 406 So.2d 135, (La. 1981)

Jury Trial, November 26, 27, 28, 29th, 1979.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Count 1 aggravated rape;
Count 2, aggravated crimes against nature. This case required the testimony of a
ten-year old victim. Case preparation was crucial. This necessitated many visits
and meetings with the child in order to gain her trust. and confidence which was.
essential to her trial testimony. When I initially met the victim and her mother, she
would not comment. Then, she later made only isolated statements. The child had
to be shown the courtroom, where she would be seated and where all the lawyers,
defendant and judge would be seated. In advanced preparation for trial, D.A.
personnel were placed in the courtroom to simulate the public. Great efforts were
made to make the child understand what was about to happen and to make her
comfortable and responsive. Final Disposition: Jury Verdict - Guilty as charged;

Affirmed.

Trial Assistant for State:

Assistant District Attorney Arthur Lentini
2551 Metairie Road

Metairie, LA 70001

(504) 838-8777

16

PoRTO00000031


1662
G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE
Full name and social security number.

Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Office and home addresses, zip codes, telephone numbers and area codes.
Office: 24th Judicial District Court, Division "A"
Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg.
Second Floor, Room 200
Gretna, LA 70053
(504) 364-3850
Home: 4801 Neyrey Dr.
Metairie, LA 70002
($04) 455-5879
Date and place of birth.

December 15, 1946
New Orleans, LA

Are you a naturalized citizen? If so, give date and place of naturalization,
No.
Family status.

a. Have you ever been married? If so, state the date of marriage and
your spouse’s full name including maiden name, if applicable.

Yes. June 28, 1969 - Carmella Ann Giardina Porteous

b. Have you been divorced? If so, give particulars, including the date,

PORTOOG000037


1577

osrzses esoy er que
2 ene, f
Farm aggaved:
sia Fam 86 - (9300. he sae 207
jaca ‘ Nee row areata
U.8.0fIce af Personnel Management ene

‘Chapter 732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION:
Carefully read thie enthorization to release information ebout you, then sign and date it in ink,

1 Authorize any investigator, special agent, or other duly accredited representative of the US.
Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense,
and any authorized Federal agency, to obtain any information relating to my activities from
schools, residential management agents, employers, crtminat justice agencies;
establishments, or other sources of information. This information may include, but is not vlinteed
to, my academic, residential, achievement, performance, attendance, disciplinary, employment
history, and eriminal history record information.

I Understand that, for financial or lending institutions, medical institutions, hospitals, health
care professionals, and other sources of information, a separate specific release will or may be
needed, and I may be contacted for such a release at a later date.

I Further Authorize the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Department of Defense, and any other authorized agency, to request criminel
record information about me from criminal justice agencies for the purpose of determining my
eligibility for, assignment to, or retention in, a sensitive position, in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 9101.

I Authorize custodians of records and sources of information pertaining to me to release such
information upon request of the investigator, special agent, or other duly accredited representative
of any Federal agency authorized above regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary.

y

I Understand that the information released by records custodians and sources of information is
for official use by the Federal Government, only for the purposes provided in this Standard Form
86, and may be redisclosed by the Government only as authorized by law.

Copies of this authorization that show my signature are as valid aa the original release signed by
tne, This authorization is valid for two (2) years from the date signed,

aaa ae ROT “a FE
4801 Neyrey Dr., Metairie LIA | 710101012 | (504) 455-5879
Page 10

~ > PorToo0000012


1645

pagdoy

*Bu1300 pue quaseud siaquew ([e ua}m “6a6T
T Aey uo Buyzaau sa} ze sYOLDAYIG 4O OYvOR a4 <q
pe A|snowjueun a4am yoiym **p37 ‘qnl9 f4zuNO] puP

4109 MeazeYD 40 sme7-Kg @ua JO Kdo9 qDe1U09 pue sey?

® Si BuyoBesoy pur anoge 243 ye43 Ky42499 Kqav9y 1S

000

LWITATLUID

8

“eaep Stuy do se 9a32a49 swossq [Leys Kaya pue sMeTse

4Olid Le apasuadns [[es sMeT-Xg papuaue aso,

Ss

“IX NOILO3S -
SALLIMWOD dTHSYzEW3H “9
S3LLIWWOD 100d ONIWWIMS “4
S3LLIWAOD SINNIL °3
33LLIWNOI 3SNOHENID “O
3ALLTWHO) TWI90S °9
F3LLIWNOD 39VYIAIG ¥ GOO ‘9
33LLIWWOD 3100 ‘W

Lpouneg qni 243 40 yuasuo> pue a>} ape
PYF UIIM $39z3(WMOD B43 JO URW~eYD a4} Aq paz>—a[as
2 LLeus 323z}mMN09 YD Jo Ssoquew Buju eu! pue
Lyouno9 qni9 eu; Jo saquew e aq [Leys 3933 LUMIOD YoLE
40 URUALEYD ayy "gnL AsquNoD pue 4109 NeAzeY Jo
s923}juwoo Bujpueys eyz a4e BULMOL LOS AYL *S33LLIWNOD

“xX NOILOIS

“spunoa6 S94 pur s@caeLtoes gnto auz Jo sn ayy
Paluap JeAei0s pur diysuaquau gni3 sy2 Wous pai ladxa
AL pwopqewozne aq (Leys ay ‘sdep (O¢) Azay43 40s
papuadsns Uyeue. Jaquall papuadsns ey7 Pinoys «p.eog
ULIBLUMG GnL) 843 Uo pazsod aq [Leys UOJsadsns Jo
90}30N “qNL9 9yz 40 SaBalIAtad a43 wos papusdsns aq
LLeys Aequew guenbu} [sp 943 ‘AouaNbuL Lap Jo a>130U 94>
40 Bup|jew yo azep ayz wory sep (GT) ueezsps UjYaIM
Lung ut pyed ud—aq 30u sey quhosoe autque 942 3ey2 QUDAa
‘2y2 UT “guanbut Lap S} YDLYM quNOde s}y Jo Uo}q40d
‘2RU2 02 papper aq [Leys quarted (%OT) UI Jo AZ LeUad
Aouanbuy lap @ pue Aouanbul [ap Yons Jo pats}zou aq [Leys
daquau 94) *apeu SeM aBuey> ayy YOLYM UL YauoW e4g 40
Aep 35e1 ayy ase skep (of) A24tu9 quanbu} [ap pasepys
-WOD aq [[PYS SzuNoI.y *peranouy Sem SSoUpezgepuL

Ua YOLUM UFURIM YzUOM 942 BULMOL {oF YaUOW B43 Jo ep
3S4}5 943 Uo algeced pur anp aq ([eYs 3SaNb e Jo taquew


1651

He had not planned to ride with Douglas, nor does it appear
that he was attempting to enter the car. The spontaneity
s against his fully comprehending

of Stark's behavior milita
the risks attendant. Finally, nowhere does it appear that
Stark knew that Douglas would start his car and drive away
with Stark clinging to its side. once Douglas left, stark
had no idea how far he would drive. Even if Stark hopped
aboard once the car began to move, it cannot be said that’
Stark voluntarily assumed the risks of bouncing across

a neighbor's yard or of proceeding on down the street.
Stark was given no opportunity to get off during the course
of these maneuvers. Given the leanings of Bel) and the
facts herein, we find the court correctly concluded that
assumption of the risk was inapplicable as a matter of

law.
We now turn to the questions of whether the trial

court erred in its reassessment of the percentages of fault.
By the 1979 amendment of La. C.C.P. art. 18612 quantum maye
indeed, be altered by J.N.0.V. provided that "based on

the evidence there is no genuine issue cf fact." That

is, “where the trial court is convinced that, under the

evidence, reasonable ainds could not differ as to the amount

of damages, it should have the authority to grant the appropriate
judgment notwithstanding the verdict." La, C.C.P. art.

21811 comments. We also note that this enunciated standard
applies to changes affecting the merits, nore specifically,

the reassessment of fault. Blum v. New Orleans Pub. Serv.,

Inc., 469 S0.2d 1117, 1119 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985), writ
denied, 472 50.24 921 (La. 1985).

The trial court, in its reasons for judgment,

states, in part:

PORTOO0000086


1795

PD-302 (Rev. 3-10-42)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Dawe of ranscrtption _ 8/18/94

Judge THOMAS PORTBOUS, State Court Judge for the 24th
District of Louisiana, located in Gretna, Louisiana (LA),
telephonically contacted this interviewing Agent in the New
Orleans. Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
PORTEOUS advised that he had telephoned his office in Gretna, LA,
from Baton Rouge, LA, where he was teaching a Glass. PORTEOUS

had called in to xr messages, and was advised that @>

had been interviewed earlier that
ay by FBI Agents of New Orleans office. As a result, she was
noticeably unnerved. PORTEOUS had been advised by of the
nature of the interview, and stated that he seemed to recall
being involved in bond reduction matters involving former
criminal defendants, QMEEIR and He further
stated that he seamed to recall that bond was originally
set at a very High sum of money, but upon request by the
arresting officer, name unrecalled, he (PORTEOUS) agreed to
reduce the boné considerably. PORTBOUS also absolutely denied
that any money. was received by him as a fee for agreeing to
reduce the bond in the Qa matter.

with regards.to the SEED 82 PORTEOUS.
statéd he recalled agreeing towreduce her bond after obtaining

information about the complainant, which convinced him that the
charges against her did not merit such a high bond being set

Tavuguion on 9/27/94 ot Hey Oxleans, Louisiana ies 77A-HO- oF __
(Telephonically)
by SA s égin Date dinsted 8/38/94

‘This docoment contains neither tecomrmendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It ls the property of the PBL an¢ is loaned te pour agency?
it and is contents are not to be dsttbated outside prot agetcy.

PORTOOO000491


1573

osrayes saos @ou
a o} i
7 RECRAVES
{ive hd names ad ctr the crac odo fra lates, hing or ded: spectted below
1-Mother (ia 4. Sigler TeStpehid 10+ 6upbroter—19-Halitar 16- Guardan
2Faher (cane) Postar part &- ener Hi-Stpdter 14. Faherinisw
| Supmaner 6-Chld (apie aso) 9 Slate 12cHafrober 15. Mobeinew
= = Sey |S a TE
_betoce entecing nama) Monte Vear hahaa Chieanship {cour ot Living Ratatives | 5
| al
usa Fs Forsaous ayonsas usa. isa ateceased 1
ubriel T. Porteous, Sr. 1/13/09 USA. USA dy ad £
a ar REFS OE
Michael P. Porteou ssn | usa sa etairie Lik
q ‘imothy A. Pc 2/42/73 us IS oda
thy A. Porteous A usa L
ol (S01 Neyeey Des
Thouas _K. Porteous RIL LN sk ateke pLTa~
a a0 Neyrey Or.
Catherine A. ‘Porteou: 18/8). USA Usa fetairie Lia
q 301 Anhuree
Anthony J. Giardina 2/19/19 Usa USA fetairie Lia
cg 301 Aakuret
jovanina G. Giardina {23/19 us USA. hatred care
1
TOT VURAL staToe
Markone ote folowtg boxes show your curate:

Fi] - Nevor marie (g0 © question 19) (|= - Separated
[Sle - acted

“Ja rensons tive wire YOU
ide ciizen of another country, & a Unted Sisioscizen by ofr than tt, lve at your residence? Yes,” prove the

Doss
leformation required below, Ha United Stats cfzen by other fan bch Ive wit you, shaw both “United States” end prix
county ol clizenchip below. Don lst your spouse or athe alatves you pravided In question 17.

Ha of Pee Geary of hese Teulon

ESSE Eee Tp a Page ea De Sa
gion ey ef grtinain Pu eB be bho oes nu rw te RE
Enter your Social ‘Number before going o the next page Ey
Bana ® . t



1679

Suite 1000, 639 Loyola Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70113
(504)523-5100

(© Karen Jewell, et al. v. The Berkshire Development et al., 612 So.2d 749,

(La.App. 5 Cir. Dec.,1992)

James O. Manning
3108 David Drive
Metairie, LA 70003
(504)885-0400

Robert B. Acomb, Jr.

Richard D. Bertram

201 St. Charles Ave., 50th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
(504)582-8112 and 582-8334

Thomas G. Wilkinson
300 Huey P. Long Ave.
Gretna, LA 70054
(504)364-1892

L. Hades Hogue
Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Lawrence W. Dagate

21st Floor, Pan-American Life Center
601 Poydras Street

New Orleans, LA 70130-6097

(504) 584-9431, 584-9175, and 584-9135

(o) wan
5 Cir., May, 1993)

Robert Winn

Betty PF. England
201 St. Charles Ave.
35th Floor

18

, 618 So.2d 1213, (La.App.

PORTOOGOCO114


1649

of negligence and (b) it erroneously increased the quantam
award. .

The record shows that on November 25, 1981, as
Stephen Douglas was about to depart an evening party attended
by various neighborhood teen-aged males, Stanton Stark
walked up to the passenger door of Douglas‘ vehicle. Besides
Douglas, three other males were inside the car. Shortly

after Stark approached, Douglas pulled away, made a U-turn--
nd headed south down

in part, across a neighbor's lawn--
Sandra Avenue towards Lafreniere Street. For whatever

reason, Stark, who had been positioned in the open doorway

of the car, remained so positioned, riding on the door

sill as the car followed this path. After the car straightened
out on Sandra, Stark either fell or jumped off, struck

his head, and later died.

In addressing the initial issue, we note the

plaintiffs in this suit oppose GEICO, their uninsured/unde:
insured motorist carrier. State Farm paid its $10,000
Liability limit for coverage on the Douglas auto and was
dismissed at the close of the plaintiffs’ -case. Plaintiffs
concede that GEICO’ is entitled to a $10,000 credit for

the sum paid by State Farm. Calculated in the initial
judgment, the credit must have been onitted inadvertently
from the J.N.O.V. Accordingly, we amend the judgment of

the trial court to incorporate the $10,000 credit.

We now turn to the remaining issue and initially
address whether the trial court erred in reassessing the
negligence of the parties. The jury found that Stark assumed
the risk of injury. It also specifically allocated fault

at 44 percent to Douglas and 56 percent to Stark. In casting

PORTOOGO00084


1756

4

considered in deternining the
reasonableness of a fee include the

following:

(1) The time and labor required,
the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved, and the skill
requisite to perform the legal
sarvice properly;

(2) The likelihood, if apparent to
the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employnent will
preclude other employment by the
Lawyer:

(3) The fee customarily charged in
the locality for similar legal
eervices;

(4) The amount involved and the
results obtained;

(8) The time limitations imposed by
the client or by the circumstances;

(6) The natuxe and length of the
profeasional relationship with the
elient;

7) The experience, reputation, and
ability of the lawyer or lawyers
performing the services; and

(8) Wnether the fee is fixed or
contingent.

Quantum meruit neans as much as is deserved. smith v.
Hastnide Transit Lines, Inc,, 323 $0.24 371 (La.app. 4th
cir.i975), writ denied, 318 s0.2d 43 (La.197S). A quantum meruit
analysis properly evaluates not merely the lava expended, but the
resitits and benefits obtained. Sith v. Westside Trannit Lines,
ince, supra; Keys y. Mercy Hosp, of New Orleans, supra, at 1225.
Therefore, recovery is limited to the actual valua of the service
rendered. Saucier v. Haves Dairy Products, Inc., supra; Keve v.

Mercy Hosp. of New Orleans, supra.
the trial court gave aredence to Ms. Watts testimony and

round that she had ample cause to discharge Mr. Cerullo for his
Jack of candor and failure to communicate. The court further
found that Hr. Cerullo took a “wait and see" approach to the case
and should not be compensated for that tine. ‘The court further
found that the estimate of the hours spent, reconstructed after
the fact and offered at trial by Mr. cerullo, was exaggerated.

‘PorTooO000191


1675

Division "B", Judge Zaccaria
Citations: 363 So.2d 1263

Trial on the summary judgment.

Sole Counsel: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
for Defendant

Capsule summary of case: Suit to collect for appraisal fees. Motion for summary
judgment on behalf of my client Jon-T Chemicals alleging the doctrine of accord
and satisfaction. The case was noteworthy because it was handled in an expedient

manner via summary judgment.
Final Disposition: Summary judgment granted; Court of Appeals - Affirmed.

Opposing Counsel:
Thomas Loop
(deceased)

g. If you believe the responses 11(a) through 11(f) do not reflect your
experience, please describe any experience which you consider the
equivalent of trial experience.

Not applicable.

12. State the judicial office you now hold, and the judicial offices you have
previously held, giving dates and the details, including the courts involved, _
whether elected or appointed, periods of service and a description of the
jurisdiction of each of such courts with any limitations upon the jurisdiction
of each court.

District Court Judge January 1, 1985 - Present
State of Louisiana
Division A;-24th Judicial District-Court

District Court Judge, Ad Hoc August 24, 1984 - January 1, 1985

State of Louisiana
Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

14

PORTO00000110


1660

6

(1) A lawyer may advance court
costs and expenses of litigation,
the repayment of which may be
contingent on the outcome of the
matter; and

£2) A lawyer representing an
indigent client may pay court costs
and expenses of litigation on
behalf of the client.

Rule 1.3(e) embodies the former Disciplinary
Rule 5-103(B):

Disciplinary Rule 5~103(B)
provides: “While representing a
Client in connection with
contemplated or pending litigation,
a lawyer shall not advance or
guarantee financial agsiastance to
his client, except that the

may advance or irantees the
expenses of litigation, including
court costs, expences of
Anvestigation, expenses of medical
examination, and costs of obtaining
and presenting evidence, provided
the cliont remains ultimately
liable for such expenses.“

Edwina, 329 80.24 437 (La.1976), at page 446,

~- ‘the supreme court addressed the propriety of
advancing financial assistance during
Fepresentation of a client:

If an impoverished person is unable
to secure subsistence from aome
source during disability, ha may be
@eprived of the only effective
means by which he can wait out the
Revessary delays that result from
litigation to enforce his causa of
action. He may, for reasons of
economic necessity and physical
need, be forced to settle his claim
for an inadequate anount.

‘The Dupuis court held that certain médical and living
expanses are now included a part of the "fee" for privilege

Purposes. The court at 1193, further observed that:

+++In extending the privilege to cover such
advances, the legislature intended to .
overrule, at least in part, a

1 376 80.24 496

(La.1979).

In Calk, supra, the Louisiana Supreme
Court found that the word “fee" did not
include advances which are in the nature of a
loan, nor does it include the payment or
reimbursement of expenses which, like medical
bills, constitute the client’s spacial
damages...

PORTOOOOO00S5


1748

its first and J.N.O.v. judgments, the court disregarded
this assumption of risk finding, concluding that La. ¢.c.
art. 2323 more properly applied to assign degrees of fault.
In essence, then, the court determined that the finding
as to assumption of risk was legally irrelevant. °

The trial court based its conclusion on what

Wheel Blast, 462 So.2a

we consider dicta in Bell

166 (La. 1985) that indicates: :
In those types of cases in which

comparative fault principles may be
applied, the principles of article
2323 and its predecessors should be
applied by analogy so that the claim .
for damages recoverable shail be reduced
in proportion to the degree or percentage
of negligence attributable to the person
suffering the injury, death or loss.
- + + Purthermore, the adoption of
a system of comparative fault should,
where it applies, entail the merger
of the defenses of misuse and assumption
of risk into the general scheme of
assessment of liability in ‘proportion
to fault.

Id. at 172.

Our jurisprudence states that "The elements of

the defense of assumption of the risk are: (1) that the
plaintiff had knowledge of the danger; (2) that he understood
and appreciated the risk therefrom; and (3) that he voluntarily
Golf

exposed himself to such risk." Fritscher v. Chate:

& Country Club, 453 So.2d 964, 967 (La. App. Sth Cir, 1984),
writ denied, 460 So.2d 604 (La. 1984). See also Beck v.
Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 467 So.2d 1318, 1321 (La. App. Sth
rs that Stark had been drinking,

Cir, 1985). Here, it app.
which might well have affected his knowledge of danger

or his appreciation of that danger, Moreover, the testimony
without exception indicates that Stark's approaching the

car and his behavior thereafter were unplanned and unanticipated.

PORTOOG000183


1751

that there would be no movement of
the vehicle until he was safely away
from, or inside of, the vehicle.

Under these circumstances, the court
concludes that Steven [sic] Douglas
breached the duty he owed to plaintité
to exercise reasonable care in the
operation and control of his vehicle
and the risk of plaintiff's injury
was within the scope of that duty.
Inasmuch as Steven [sic] Douglas’ negligent
conduct was a cause{-Jin{-]fact of
the accident and resulting injuries,
he is liable to plaintiff.

We agree.
Regarding the final issue, quantum, we note the

trial court, in its reasons for judgment, states, “The -
court is convinced that, under the evidence of this case,
reasonable minds could not differ as to the fact that a
much higher award of damages was justified." Again, we
agree. Recognizing the well-settled legal axiom that a
trial court has wide discretion in its award of damages,
we will not disturb such an award absent manifest error,
and we find none. Accordingly, we find no error in the
trial court's entry of the judgment N.O.V. in favor of
the plaintiff.

. Other issues have been raised, which, we ‘find,
have no merit.

For the reasons assigned, the judgnent of the
trial court is affirmed, with the exception that this court
reduces the damage award by $10,000, which is the amount
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as the

insurer of StephenDouglas, has already paid the plaintiffs.

AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED

PORTOO0000186


1628

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Standing Committee on
Federal Judiciaty
1200 M Steet, NW
Washinglon, BC 20036
an Ss

CONFIDENTIAL August 30, 1994

Committee on the Judiciary
ATT: Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
224 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510-6275

RE: HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
United States District Court

wicsigested © Dear Senator Biden:
fing Gruen, KY <2020770
thomas apn Thank you for affording this Committee an

mat opportunity to express an opinion pertaining to the

“chagn kes? — nomination of Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. for
swertHcecuT appointment as Judge of the United States District
sages © Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.

“taba co Hort our Committee is unanimously of the opinion that
weic Balding Peatows Judge Porteous is Qualified for this appointment.

ear Me Macs A copy of this letter has been sent to
Oe serttgs = gudge Porteous for his information.

oe ers
1 Sincerely,
BEET CRCUT
‘pete Wao (Rue UM

William B. Willis
STRICT OF COMBA chair

"3 Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Mtg, be Toes All ABA Judiciary Committee Members
foes CuCLT Hon, Eleanor Dean Acheson

PORTOOOGO063


1624

ome AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Standing Committee on
Aobe  vatg Federal Judiciary
‘oes

a
ome Ober Seel Reply to: Williems & Connolly
orton, MA Oa 725 12th St., N.W.
SK ber Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 434-5151

ticdon Sunes June 29, 1994
Since

CONFIDENTIAL.

Fen fom fe
rao ove anarews Cent, © Rleanor Dean Acheson, Esquire
, Assistant Attorney General
oitRT «Office of Policy Development
warcoptiea United States Department of Justice
Posting Groans RY Room 4234
Sigua Washington, D.C. 20530

‘chant
MierGiaees! RE: HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.

EIGHT CIRCUIT United States District Court

A cate Seat Baste: of Lo

sous MO St

tntwcnest Dear Eleanor:

seo na

St ne et Thank you for your letter of June 28, 1994 regard-
cuile¢ Guo ing the Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

us caress

San ranciey A DISS I have also received a copy of your letter to
rmetaveny Judge Porteous requesting him to forward a copy of his
Suite 2050 Personal Data Questionnaire responses to me and

oot Mey = Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

egven cco
0 city ata bs I have written to Judge Porteous and Mrs. Walbolt.
sy Book Bit
‘Beater sit Copies of those letters are enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

Fite Woks

Robert P. Watkins
Chair

aso
ana Metin Enclosures

cc: Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

sgt Oe oe ,
Oe ID PoRToo0000059


15.

1586

I was first elected without opposition in 1984 for the term to commence
January 1, 1985. At the request of the Louisiana Supreme Court, because
the Division “A" seat was vacant, I was appointed to sit as the Ad Hoc

- Judge, effective August 24, 1984. I was re-elected without opposition in

1990 for the term commencing January 1, 1991.

The 24th Judicial District Court is a state trial court of general civil and
criminal jurisdiction. However, juvenile proceedings and traffic violations
are not included in our jurisdiction. Other specific courts dispose of these

two areas.
Citations: If you are or have been a judge, provide:
(1) citations for the ten most significant opinions you have-written;

(Davi inv. Carria ini , 528 So.2d

1043, (La. App 5 Cir., June 1988)
@ Inthe Matter of Wrongful Death of Stanton I. Stark, #No. 86-CA-34

(La. App. 5 Cir., June, 1986) (Not designated for publication)

See Attachment "B-1"
@) 519 So.2d 1187,

Edgar Carlsen v. Mehaffey & Daigle, Inc., et al.,
(La. App. 5 Cir., Jan. 1988); 522 So.2d 1091, (LA 1988)
4 Paul Fuller v, William Barattini, 514 So.2d 412, (La. App. 5 Cir.,

.  Jan.,1991)
(5) Paul Hidding v. Di, Randall Williams, 578 So.2d 1192, (La. App. 5

Cir., April,1991)
(© Karen Jewell vy. The Bershire Development, 612 So.2d 749, (La.

App. 5 Cir. Dec.,1992)
(a) y, al al, 618 So.2d 1213, (La.

App. 5 Cir., May,1993)
(8) . Betty Ann Dunn v. Kreutziger, D.D,S.. et al., 625 So.2d 672, (La.

App. 5 Cir., Oct., 1993)
12) i al :
* App.Ct. # , (La. App 5 Cir.,1994)(Not designated for
publication)
See Attachment "B-2"

PORTOOO000021


1803

THENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 89-2360

vs.
AUBRY N.. WALLACE DIV. A

; Proceedings taken in the above numbered
and entitled cause in open court on June 26, 1990
before the Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Judge
presiding.

heen eee

APPEARANCES:
For the State:

ANN LAMBERT, Assistant District Attorney

For the Defendant:

JOSEPH J. TOSH, Attorney at Law

Raported by: Sandra B. Bancock, CCR

PORTOOO0006



1615

AFFIDAVIT

I, Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr., do swear that the information provided in
this statement is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate.

Gretna, Louisiana this day of , 1994.

35

PORTOOG000050


1837

#D-202e (Rev. 11-15-42)

TIAWHQ-

Seatinuntin of FD-202 of _ JUDGE THOMAS PORTEOUS .0x__8/18/94 _.raue__3

influenc pressure, coercion or compromise and/or would impact
negatively on his character, reputation, judgement or discretion.



1619

co Tone oe Fares pores bate of pare
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT (cont'd) Porteous (Jr.), Gabriel T. (8-29-94

de INVESTMENTS, and TRUSTS, a ioome, value, transactions. (inciades those of spouse

NONE cm
Tasoney ae

ear
1



1829

FD-302 (Rev, 310-82)

-1-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date of transcription __7/8/94

GABRIEL THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR., Judge, Division A, 24th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, was interviewed at
his place of business, JEFFERSON PARISH COURTHOUSE, Gretna,
Louisiana 70053, 504/364-3850. PORTEOUS was advised that he was
being interviewed as a result of a request for the FBI to conduct
@ background investigation concerning his candidacy for U.S.
District Judge, Eastern District of Louisiana. PORTEOUS was
advised that the scope of the questions d during the inter-
view was not necessarily limited to the timeframe on the SF-86
and that his response to each question should cover his entire
adult life, since age 18. It was also pointed out the PORTEOUS
that Question 23 on the SF-86, pertaining to "Police Record,"
covers activities since his 16th birthday.

PORTEOUS currently resides at 4801 Neyrey Driv
Metairie, Louisiana, which is the only property he owns
Eine. PORTEOUS attended LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT NEW
ORLEANS (LSU-NO), from September, 1964, to May, 1968, while he
resided with his family at 2218 Madrid street, New Orleans,
Louisiana. LSU-NO is known as the UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS
(UNO) today. PORTEOUS was employed by BAKER’S SHOE STORES as
listed in his application the summer after his graduation from
high school and during his attendance at LSU-No.

t this

After graduation from LSU-NO in May, 1968, PORTEOUS
continued to work for BAKER’S SHOE STORES during the summer.
During PORTEOUS’ attendance at LSU LAW SCHOOL in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, he continued to work part-time for BAKER’S and
affiliated shoe stores in Baton Rouge. He believes BAKER'S is
owned by EDISON SHOES. After PORTEOUS’ first year of law school,
from May, 1969, to approximately August, 1969, he resided with
his parents on Madrid Street for a few months while he prepared
for his wedding. PORTEOUS said that after graduation from law
school in May, 1971, he was preparing for the Bar examination
which he took’ in late June or early July, 1971. He believes he
began working at the Office of the Attorney General, State of
Louisiana, throughout the Summer of 1971, before becoming Special
Counsel there in September, 1971.

Investigation on _7/6 & 7/8/94 # Gretna, Louisiana Files 77A7HO- of

SA BOBBY P. HAMIL, JR., and
Date dictated 7/8/94

commendations nor conclusions of the FBL Its the property of the PBI and is louned to your agency:
istributed outside your agency.

‘This document contalas nei
i and ies contents are ot to be

HP Exhibit 69(i)


1648

on appeal is a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
(7.N.0,V.) disposition of a wrongful death matter in which
the jury had allocated faalt 44 percent to Stephen Douglas
and 56 percent to the decedent, Stanton Stark. We amend
and, as amended, we affirm.

We are called upon to determine:

(1) Whether the trial court erred in failing
to credit GEICO for the $10,000 paid by the auto liability
insurer, State Farm; and

(2) Whether the trial court erred in granting

the J.N.O.V. in that (a) it erroneously reassessed percentages

PoRToGCGO00s3


1710

267A JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

~ STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 321-881 DIVISION “A”
‘A. PAUL FULLER and/or UNITED TALENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
vs.
WILLIAM BARATTINI
» 1989 DEPUTY CLERK:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
William Baractini is the owner of

‘The pertinence facts are thas
property located a 3116 Norch Arnoult Road, Metairie, Louisiana.

On Occober 21, 1982, a written lease was executed by Barattini, as
Lessor, and A. Paul Fuller, as Lessee. The Lease provided for « five year

primary term beginning December 1, 1982. The lessee paid TWELVE THOUSAND

AND WO/100 ($12,000.00) DOLLARS pursuanc to che terms of this lea
conscitucing the first month's rental and the deposit.

Hie. Fuller's purpose was to open a Ladies Club vhere an all male
cast could perform exclusively for wouen. .He was apparently impressed by
the Fat City location and expended a lot of tine and effort to establish
the club as a going concern.

At the outsec, the courc wishes to mske note chat the business the
plaintif£ vanted co establish might appear 2t first blush to be morally
reprehensible co some. In.fact, in defendant's post trial memorandum,
Baractini, after che face, referred to himself as an "honest, hard-working

person and plaintiff's business as “the operation of such an offensive and

obnoxious business as a Ladies Night Club/ msle strip joint“. The court is
se

unimpressed by such platitudes end condemations, In the instant cas
woralicy. The

1s not the coure's duty to sanction or censure the parcti
Coure has before it a lease dispuce.

It is the decision of this Courc that the defendant, Willian
Barattin{, breached the contract of Lease with che plaintiff, A. Paul Fuller,
and that plaintiff is enticled co a recession of the Lease agreenent and
damages.

‘The Lessee made it clear co the lessor chat in order to open che
establishment he envisioned, he vould need adequate parking. Ie is the
opinion of this court that plaintiff made known to defendant the purpose of

the establishmest and what, to him, appearad to be a problem with parking.

PORTOG0000145


Viewing the evidence most favorably to the party against
whom the motion is made, the verdict is so unreasonable that it
would be unconscionable to permit it to stand. The jury clearly
held Stanton to a higher standard of conduct than the law demanded.

It is clear from the evidence that at the beginning of
the scenario Stanton Stark was nothing more than-a pedestrian,
resting-on the Douglas vehicle while observing the activity of the
occupants. Stanton then involuntarily became an “outrider" on the
vehicle because of the sudden and unexpected movement of the car.

‘The court is of the opinion that Stanton had every legal
right to assume that there would be no movement of the vehicle
until he was safely away from, or inside of, the vehicle.

Onder these circumstances, the court concludes that
Steven Douglas breached the duty he owed to plaintiff to exercise
reasonable care in the operation and control of his vehicle and
the risk of plaintifé's injury was within the scope of that duty.
Inasmuch as Steven Douglas negligent conduct was a cause in fact
of the accident and resulting injuries, he is liable to plaintiff.

‘The evidence further showed Steven Douglas drove his car
in an erratic fashion and that once he set his car in motion,
Stanton Stark was left with no other recourse but to just hang

on for dear life.
The Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled on the duty a

guest passenger owes himself in Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co., 430

So. 24 SS (La. 1983).
In the Smith case the defendant turned into a designated

parking area and came to a complete stop. With the radio playing
very loud, he looked only to his left, put the car in reverse and
failed to notice that the interior dome light came on when plaintiff
attempted to exit the car. As she alighted, defendant suddenly and
without warning put the car in reverse and started backing up,
causing her to be thrown to the ground and struck by the auto door.
As a result of the injury, plaintiff was paralyzed. Defendants
asserted the defense of contributory negligence. The court in the

Smith case ruled:

203 PORTO00000138


1581

UNITED STATES SENATE ji

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES

I, BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION (PUBLIC)
1. Full name (include any former names used).
Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr.
2. Address: List current place of residence and office address(es).

Residence: 4801 Neyrey Drive
Metairie, LA 70002

Office: 24th Judicial District Court
Division "A*
Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg.
2nd Floor, Room 200
Gretna, LA 70053

3. Date and place of birth.
December 15, 1946 New Orleans, LA

4. Marital status (include maiden name of. wife, or husband’s name. List
spouse’s occupation, employer’s name and business address(es).

Carmella Ann Giardina Porteous
Vascular Technician

Vascular Laboratory, Inc.

3939 Houma Blvd., Suite 20
Metairie, LA 70006

5. Education: List each college and law school you have attended, including
dates of attendance, degrees received, and dates degrees were granted.

PORTOOOOGO016


1848

D. he Racketeering Conspiracy

1, Beginning at a date unknown but prior to 1991, and continuing through the date of
this bill of information, in the Eastem District of Louisiana and elsewhere, LOUIS M.
MARCOTTE, III, defendant herein, being 2 person employed by and associated with the enterprise.
which enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce, did conspire
together and with other persons known and unknown to the United States Attomey to violate Title
18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly.
in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattem of racketeering activity consisting of
multiple acts involving bribery in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 14, Article 118
(Public Bribery) and indictable under Title 18, United States Cote, Sections 1341, 1346 (Mail
Fraud).
2. It was part of the conspiracy that the defendant and his co-conspirators agreed that
a conspirator would commit at least two Acts of Racketeering in the conduct of the affairs of the
enterprise.
E. Pury Sd, ft racy

The form and substance of the conspiracy was as follows:

“1, ttwas apartofthe conspiracy that the defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, If, and
others known to the United States Attorney, engaged in a scheme to maximize BBU’s and
MARCOTTE's own profits from writing bail bonds in Jefferson Parish and elsewhere through the
comuption of and attempts to corruptly influence certain sheriff's deputies and judges and the

defrauding Amwest, among other things.

2. twas a further part of the conspiracy that the defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE,
III, and others known to the United States Attorney, used the United States mails and other private
interstate carriers to process BBU bonds which had been corruptly obtained, to disguise cash

Payments as campaign contributions, and to defraud Amwest.


The court is of the opinion that the instant case
warrants a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on both the issue
of liability and damages.

The court is convinced that, under the evidence of this
case, reasonable minds could not differ as to the fact that a much
higher award of damages was justified.

The present award is clearly out of line with the
evidence presented in the case and other awards. Other awards,
while not used for achieving uniformity, serves as an aid in
determining whether a particular award is so out of line that
reasonable minds could not differ as to the amount of damages.

The court therefore grants plaintiffs’ motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the verdict of the jury
awarding John Stark, TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PIPTY AND
WO/100 ($21,750.00) DOLLARS and Lynn Stark TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND
‘THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE AND NO/100 ($26,333.00) DOLLARS is
set aside, and the court reforms the jury verdict increasing it
to John Stark, FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($40,000.00) DOLLARS and
Lynn Stark, FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($40,000.90) DOLLARS.

As to the inmotion for new trial, under the provisions
of Code of Civil Procedure Article 1811 (C.)(1), the court should
ule on the motion for a new trial even though the motion for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted. The court,
therefore, determines that should the judgment notwithstanding the
verdict be thereafter vacated or reversed, the motion for a new
trial is conditionally granted for the reasons heretofore mentioned
in the granting of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and
because the verdict is too unreasonable to permit it to stand.

As to the motion for adgitur the court finds it necessary
to rule on said motion in light of the fact that the court has granted
a judgment notwithstanding the versicgaste damages. oF D3

- ue
Gretna, Louisiana, this _/¥ “day of July, 1985.

PORTOO0000140


1623

U.S. Departme{” pf Justice

Office of Policy Development

‘Assistant Attorney Geoerat : Woshingom, D.C. 20530

August 25, 1994

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Honorable G. Thomas Porteous
Gretna Courthouse Annex Building
2nd Floor, Room 200

Gretna, Louisiana 70053

Dear Judge Porteous:

In connection with your candidacy for appointment to, the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho, you will
be required to file a “Financial Disclosure Report” as required
by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 within five days of your name
being submitted to the United States Senate for confirmation
consideration.

Please review and comply with the enclosed material.
Because of the short filing requirement, you may wish to complete
the form in draft at this time (do not send to us). Also you -
should note that the information on the form may.not be older
than thirty days from the date of nomination, You will be
notified by telephone when the five days begins to run.

If you have any questions concerning this procedure, please
call Sheila Joy at 202 514-1607.

Sincerely yours,

Reps 7 Aelia

Eleanor Dean Acheson
Assistant to the Attorney General

PORTO00000058


1570

06/23/94 802 o oo,
oe to an
&
Sundar Ferm : CONTINUATION SHE! YESTIONNAIRES pout
Decent 1980 gua Sr 6 ae, SSS cute
Ces TES anager rues wih that bettintn CenisPens rR Sci ‘aun
Fu Chee 798 BF as, uetoonte fr Pte rot alana

tnd BF #5, Questontaie for von Senatve Poetlons

TRSSTRUSTIONS: Une fs frm w conan your anes Whe Vou are Ure andur Vou Empaymant Acs Foto fa tatacioe a tem We Be pedoder
‘2eslre you we anewetng and ge kdomoaton hf we tauanch. Use ex may cna dente You rwed wo harah abe req nlomatee.

Youre Few Sot Eau ear
Porteous, Gabriel Thomas Jr 7
WHERE YOU HAVE LIVED (Oominued) "
Se ae ees [cay canes
/56°%9. 6/654 2218 Kadrsa se. Nev Orleans
Ta oer io aes You | eaaocaa ear

Sea haves

“Toate Marti] case [Eeyore Hamalfiny SerinAenpuremtersetempomen vate | Yaw Fontes We
9/74 10/73]_5_jState of La., Office of the Atty. General * bpecial counsel-Crininat Div.
neon arioh Bee haat ey (ean sae

Tlepons Horta
4) 342-701:

“P.0,_ Box-94005 [baton Rouge
iy ease

Tevet Adiess ots Loaton Gtr a Enso Aaa) s
ae & Set Acasa tt an Job Unsiog) Cs saat at
Jack Yelverton, ae verde}

‘REVGUS PaRIO0S OF THE SANE ACTITY AND LOCATION CONTINUATION SWEET 5 UBED, SHOW BLOOE
Tewectos ose [Yue Potion Tie & Sopris Name Yer Poston Te &Sapavar Hse

 Eeapers Nuria Suvir Unpigmant x Se nye Vedior
Bik L Associates

pe fe] Telephone Number

con Nuss (604) 751-479

‘net Adévess of Job Location (it dierent tan Emplorers Address) iy (County) eta | ee aaa
af ata)

‘port Rae Swe Aras 0 rl on Lai) Cr = pala

Dick Barrio: od eed i

REMUS PERIODS OF THE SALE ACTTITY MID LOCATION CORTON TER

af Yow Peston Tite & Supeors Mare Yer Poston Tas &Saparow Has Fy

PoRTOGOG0000S



1742

_ have sold it to plaintiffs.

Mr. Gilligan calculated the fuel consumption at the rate of one-half mile
per gallon. Taking into consideration a twenty percent fuel safety reserve
factor which the expert stated was standard, the vessel would have a range of
forty miles {if the vessel would have beef capable of cruising). Such range is
not safe for use as a blue water fishing vessel. He testified that the lack of
adequate power and excessive fuel consumption actually made the boat
dangerous for use as a blue water fishing vessel. Lack of power even made the
vessel unsafe for use on Lake Pontchartrain.

Ken Helmrich, an expert marine surveyor retained by plaintiffs, testified
that the boat did not perform satisfactory and failed to attain suitable speeds
as advertised and failed to plane properly or cruise at any reasonable engine
speed. He further stated that the boat would only come out of the water when
the engine was at full throttle, @ condition which would hurt the life of the
engine and cause excessive fuel consumption.

Defense called an expert, Mr. Clark Scarboro, who inspected the vessel.
Mr. Searboro was a recently retired employee of Bayliner Marine who was one
of the engineering staff members that developed the design of the 2650 Trophy
vessel. He claimed that the vessel reached: maximum r.p.m. of 4200 and a
maximum speed of 28.3 m.p.h. Even though the bottom of the boat had been
pressured washéd and scraped, he claimed the bottom was stiff rough and with
a clean bottom anda working trim it could reach speeds of 29 or even up to 32
m.p.h. He testified that if speed was not the most important factor, this vessel
wes suitable for the purposes of offshore fishing.

‘The Court finds detense’s expert testimony to be of little merit because
it showed that the boat was not able te attain speeds even approaching that
which was represented in the Bayliner literature and advertisements.

‘The Court is further convinced that the vessel would not maintain a plane

4

PORTO00000177


1766

106 S.ct.

States Supreme Court in Lockhart v.

1758(1986). The United States Supreme Court held that
States are not prohibited from death qualifying juries in

order to find that

capital cases. ‘The Court stated that in
a jury does not represent a fair cross section of the
comunity, a distinctive group in the community must have
been systematically excluded. In the case at bar there was
no distinctive group which was excluded from defendant's

tried by a jury which was

jury; therefore, dafendane w
representative of, the conmunity at large.

Defendant claims that juror Kippers should not have
been excused for cause because the juror informed the Court
that he would give the defendant » bouquet of-flovers “it he
murdered a quear." Trial transcript, January 5, 1982,
p-174, lines 20-22; p.275, lines 1-2. It is defendant's
contention that the Court should have allowed juror Kippers
to be questioned further and informed that he had a duty to
view the case impartially and put aside his personal views,
before he was excused for cause. A review of the record
shows that no objection was made by defense counsel vhen
juror Rippers was excused. Under LSA-C.cr.P. Article 842,
an error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was
objected to at the time of its occurrence. therefore, the
defendant is barred from asserting this clain.

Defendant contends that the failure of the Court to
sequester jurors individually during voir dire questioning
prejudiced the defendant. Defendant states that the jurors
were dissuaded by peer pressure and fear of enbarrassment
from responding truthfully to the questions asked of them.
A review of the record reveals that the jurors were allowed
to individually approach the bench, if they Jo desired, and
speak privately with the Court. Therefore, this claim is
unsubstantiated.

Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant's first

claim is without’ merit.

PoRTOO0000201


1789

Due to privacy concerns, Exhibit # 69 (b) in unredacted form is only available for Senators to
review.


1731

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 306-035 DIVISION *
JUDY WATTS ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, PENNY WATTS
VERSUS.

J.C. PENNEY COQ. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

FILED:
DEPUTY CLERK
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The original claim in this matter was a claim for injuries sustained by Polly
Watts in an accident at a J.C. Penney store. The Watts’ claim was settled
without trial on December 10, 1990, for the amount of $270,000.00. At the
settlement, $90,000.00 was withheld from the proceeds to pay the attorney's
fee of which it was agreed that Mr. Hand should immediately receive half and
the other halt of the fee amounting to $45,000.00 was escrawed. The issues
before the Court are: what is the proper basis for apportioning that fee, and, if
Cerullo was fired for cause, what is the value of his contribution.

The Court finds that Thomas Cerullo was fired for cause and that his
recovery is limited to quantum meruit.

At the trial of the intervention, Judith Watts testified that she discharged
Mr, Cerulla because she came to realize that he-was not representing her
properly. Mrs. Watts related a story that was both credible and disappointing
for anyone who expects conscientious performance from an attorney.

She explained that she was referred to Mr. Cerullo by a mutual
acquaintance. Judith Watts fist met Mr. Cerullo at his office where she
executed @ contract employing him to represent her and her daughter in the
principal claim. At the initial interview, she and Mr. Cerullo met briefly in a

vestibule of his office building. Mrs. Watts related how he would not allow her

PORTOOO000166


1640

Gwenty- Fourth Indicial Bistrict Gonct
PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Gretra

“JUB0e, O1vIsiOW "S

September 29, 1994

Committee on the Judiciary
Attn: Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-6275

Dear Senator Biden:

Pursuant to a request from your committee, please allow me
to supplement ay answer to Question 10.

: Inadvertently, I omitted my membership in Chateau Golf and
Country Club. I have held chis membership for approximately nine
years as an honorary member.

Since the date of my membership, Chateau Golf and Country
Club has been completely nondiscriminatory and my membership has
been fully disclosed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
other organizations involved in the background check pertaining to

my nomination.

‘Chateau Golf and Country Club was acquired by its present
owners on September 29, 1992, pursuant to bankruptcy proceedings
involving the previous owners.

Enclosed please find the original and two copies of the
bylaws of Chateau Golf and Country Club from approximately 1989.
The new. ownership has not revised or modified these bylaws, but
has allowed membership and participation open to all.

If any further information is required, please contact

Michael Coons, General Manager, Chateau Golf and Country Club, at
1-504-467-1351. Mr. Coons has previously been contacted by the

PORTOO0000075


1595

1100 Poydras St.
New Orleans, LA 70163
(504) 523-6451

2. William E. Cazaubon v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. and Commercial Union
clw
William E. Cazaub Ocean C . aniel S. Barri
and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.
Civil Action # 244-229, 24th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana
Division "A", Judge Roy Price :

Trial on the merits, November 22nd & 23rd, 1982
Chief Counsel for Plaintiff: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: This matter concerned a suit for personal injuries
resulting from an automobile accident. There were significant questions in regard
to: causation of the accident; the extent to which plaintiff's injuries were related
to the accident; and the amount of future wages that would justly compensate
plaintiff. I was associated to try this matter because of my extensive litigation
experience. Final Disposition: Judgment for plaintiff.

Co-Counsel:

Don Gardner

6380 Jefferson Hwy.
Harahan, LA 70123
($04) 737-6651

Opposing Counsel:
Rene A. Pastorek

Ste. 1060

3900 N.Causeway Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 831-3747

15

PorToo0000030


1638

Unenty- Fourth Indicinl istrict Gaurt
PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

cuanaens oF Geeta
6. Yeuns Berton,

‘uoae,omsion

September 29, 1994

Committee on the Judiciary

Attn: Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-6275

Dear Senator Biden:

Pursuant to a request from your committee, please allow me
to supplement my answer to Question 10.

Inadvertently, I omitted my membership in Chateau Golf and
Country Club. I have held this membership for approximately nine
years as an honorary member.

Since the date of my membership, Chateau Golf and Country
Club has been completely nondiscriminatory and my membership has -
been fully disclosed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
other organizations involved in the background check pertaining to
my nomination.

Chateau Golf and Country Club was acquired by its present
owners on September 29, 1992, pursuant to bankruptcy proceedings
involving the previous omers.

Enclosed please find the original and two copies of the
bylaws of Chateau Golf. and Country Club from approximately 1989.
The new ownership has not revised or modified these bylaws, but.
has allowed membership and participation open to all.

If any further information 4s required, please contact

Michael Coons, General Manager, Chateau Golf and Country Club, at
1-504-467-1351. Mr. Coons has previously been contacted by the

PORTO00000073


1714

24TH JEDICTAL OTSTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH CF JEFFERSOS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DIVISION “a

WO. 395-201
PAUL MIDDING, ET“AL
versus
- "DR. RANDALL A. WELLTANS
FILED: » 1990 DEPUTY CLERK:

juoevent

This macter came co trial on May 1, 1990.

PRESENT: GREGORY F. GANBEL, BYRON J. CASEY, IIT, and
ROBERT T. GARRITY, JR., Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
RUBINELL HIDING, Individually and as provisional
adujnistratrix of che estace of PAUL RIDING,
RUSSELL HEDDING and CENE NIDDING

LLOYD W. HAYES, Atcorney for DR. SANDALL A. WILLIAMS
‘and THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

After hearing che pleadings, evidence and acguaencs of counsel,

the Coure considering che lav and evidence to be in favor of the piaineiffs,

Rubinell Hidds

individually and as provisional adainiscratrix of the
escace of Paul Hidding, Russell Hidding and Gene Ridding for writen

reasons assigned.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED aND DECREED chat che Pereaprory Exception

of Pre

ription filed by the defendants, Dr. Randall A. Willians and The
Warcford Fire Insurance Company, is denied.

IT 15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgmenc herein
im favor of plaintiff, Rubinell Hiding, individually, for che loss of her
consortia claim ia che sum of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($35,000.00)
DOLLARS, and dn favor of plaincif£, Rubinell Hidding 2s provisional
administratrix of the estate of Paul Hidding in the sum of TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND AMD NO/100- ($250,000.00) DOLLARS, and medical expenses in
the sum of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND SIX AND 50/200 ($22,005.50) DOLLARS, with

legal, interest from che dace of Filing until paid, along with all cosets of

these proceedings.
JUDGMENT READ, REXDERED AND sxowen this /4_~éday of July, 1990,

at Gretna, Louisiana.

PoRTO00000149


1631

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Policy Development

Washingon, D.C 20530

June 28, 1994

Robert P. Watkins, Esq.
Williams & Connolly
725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Watkins:

We would appreciate having the formal report of the ABA
standing Committee on Federal Judiciary on G, Thomas Porteous,
Jr., who is under consideration for appointment as United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

To facilitate the Committee's evaluation, we have asked
Judge Porteous to forward his response to the Personal Data
Questionnaire to you and to the Circuit representative
of the Committ

Sincerely yours, .

Repay 7 Ath ——

Eleanor D. Acheson
Assistant Attorney General

ce: Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

PORTGOOG0006E


1588

Marshall v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 601 So.2d 669, (La. App. 5 Cir.

1992). Summary judgment reversed finding issue of material facts existed.
Issue of decreasing credit life for less than loan balance when combined with
tule of '78’s in rebating finance charge.

Succession of Ziifle, 595 So.2d 776, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1992). Protracted
litigation since 1978. A default judgment, taken before Judge Price, the
previous judge of Division A, was found to be a nullity; hence, subsequent
judgments were set aside.

Tracy v. Travelers Ins. Companies, 594 So.2d 541, (La. App. 5 Cir 1992)

reversed trial court on exclusion of coverage’ on comprehensive general
liability policy.

Wills vy. State Farm Auto, 578 So.2d 1006, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1991).

Reversed granting of summary judgment on whether insured had offered
choice of limits for uninsured motorist coverage and affirmatively selected

lower limits.

Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So.2d 113, (LA 1991). This is one of two cases
argued before me on the same day. In the first, Autin y. Martin, I granted
the defendant's relief on all claims and dismissed plaintiff's claims against
the banks. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed my decision at 576
So.2d 72, writs were denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 11,

1991.
The second case is the one cited. In that case I granted the bank’s

motions. Likewise, this was affirmed by the appellate court but reversed by
the Supreme Court only as to one of the banks finding the general language
in plaintiff's petition did state a cause of: action as to that one bank.

American Motorist Ins, Co., 579 So.2d 429, (LA 1991); 566 So.2d 121,

(La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). Court of Appeals changed the amount of quantum
on portions of the award. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, in
part, and the trial court, in part, on different elements of damage award.

Lutz v. Jefferson Parish School, 565 So.2d 1071, (La. App. 5. Cir 1990);
503 So.2d 106, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1987). Judgment granting reduction in
workman compensation payments based upon claimant receiving disability

PoRTO00000023


1605

District Court Judge, Ad Hoc
State of Louisiana
Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

I. FINANCIAL DATA AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST (PUBLIC)

List sources, amounts and dates of all anticipated receipts.from deferred
income arrangements, stock, options, uncompleted contracts and other future
benefits which you expect to derive from previous business relationships,
professional services firm memberships, former employers, clients, or
customers. Please describe the arrangements you have made to be
compensated in the future for any financial or business interest.

Louisiana State Employee Retirement System. If I am appointed prior to the
end of my term, i.e., December 31, 1996, the benefits can only be drawn.

when I attain age 60.

Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including the
procedures you will follow in determining these areas of concern. Identify
the categories of litigation and financial arrangements that are likely to
present ‘potential conflicts-of-interest during your initial service in the
position to which you have been nominated.

I will follow the mandates of the Federal Rules of Civil & Criminal
Procedure. I will also follow the guidelines of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
I will also consider the model codes and recommendation of the ABA which
are pertinent.

The only possible areas of conflict of interest would be reviewing
cases from Louisiana State Court, 24th Judicial District Court, Division A,
during the time I sat or a challenge to the Louisiana State Employee
Retirement System. As to the retirement, a conflict could arise only if I
remained on the Jefferson bench twelve (12) years, until 1996. If I took the
Federal bench prior to this point, I would not be eligible for retirement

proceeds until age sixty (60).

25

PORTO00000040


1725

that the nature of the event required security until all guest left the premises. The

Court is not wil ing to find as a matter of law that, at concerts and live music
performances, security must remain on the premises until all persons have left.

The Court finds that the defendants acted reasonably in preventing foreseeable

criminal conduct. The conduct which cause the plaintiff's injury was not foreseeable.

‘An owner or occupier of land who uses the property as a location for a business

establishment which the public is invited to patronize owes his customers a duty to

a. Willie

exercising ordinary care to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condi
v. American Casualty Co., 547 So.2d 1078 {La.App. Ist Cir. 1989). This
responsibility includes an obligation to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable
criminal activity by third persons.

The Court in Willie, supra at p.1085, held that the questions of causation and
foreseeability are inextricably entwined and that where the criminal act is foreseeable,
the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent such act is a proximate cause of its
result. The Court in Willie when on to state that if a jury concludes “that precautions
were available which might which might have increased the chances of dissuading the
attacker... The plaintiff is not obligated to prove the utilization of security measures
would surely have prevented the assault. Since additional criminal attacks should
have been anticipated, it is not unreasonable to infer that reasonable security measure
would have served as a deterrent and the defendant's failure to take such measures
constituted a substantial factor in the assault. Causation, like any other element of
plaintiff's case, need not be demonstrated by conclusive proof.” ~

The Court in Wille, supra at p.1081, stated that in determining whether or not
criminal activities were foreseeable, you are entitled to take into account whether or
not there was a history of prior criminal activity in the same location. Citing section
344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts(1965} at comment (fl, the Court stated
that “the possessor may know or have a reason to know, from past experience, that

ad of conduct on the part of third persons in general which are likely

there is afi
to endanger thie safety of the visitor even though he has no reason to expect it on the

part of any particular individual. If the place or character of his business, or his past

PORTOO0000160


1812

CERTIFICATE

I, Sandra B. Hancock, Official Court
Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true and correct transcript of the proceedings
heard in open court at Gretna, Louisiana, June 26,
1990 before the Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Judge

iding in the matter entitled, THE STATE OF

pr
LOUISIANA VERSUS AUBRY N. WALLACE, NO. 89-2360.

hake Heoneak)

Bangfa B. Hancock ~~

Official Court Reporter

24th Judicial District Court

In and For the Parish of Jefferson
State of Louisiana

+B
PORTOO0000619


1625

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Standing Committee on
feral fudiclary

Reply'to: Williams & Connolly
725 12th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 434-5151

June 29, 1994

CONFIDENTIAL

Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Judicial Department of Louisiana
Gretna Courthouse-Annex Building
Gretna, LA 70053

Dear Judge Porteous:

Eleanor Dean Acheson, Assistant Attorney General,
sent me a copy of her June 28, 1994 letter to you re-
questing that you transmit copies of your responses
to the Personal Data Questionnaire to me and to
sylvia H. Walbolt, Esquire, who will be conducting the
investigation. Receipt of this document is the start-
ing point for the investigation.

Enclosed is a copy of the Committee's brochure,
"standing Committee on Federal Judiciary--What It Is
and How It Works," as amended, for your information.

I£ you have any questions about this process,
please feel free to call me at (202) 434-5151.

We look forward to receipt of your responses

Sincerely yours,

Retort Volbay

Robert P. Watkins
Chair

Enclosure

cc: UMleanor Dean Acheson, Esq.
Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

PoRToGOGORN6O


1811

2 no history of any criminal activity. Two,
2 he should respond affirmatively to

3 probationary treatment. Three, his crime
4 was the result of circumstances unlikely
5 to occur. Accordingly, the Court will

6 sentence the defendant to three years at
7 hard labor which I will suspend and place
8 him on two years of active probation. He
9 . will pay a monthly supervision fee in the
10 amount of $10 per month.

11 | MR. TOSa:
12 Thank you, Your Honor,

" PORTOO000618


1591
No unsuccessful candidacies for elective public office

17. Legal career:

a. Describe chronologically your law practice and experience after
graduation from law school including:

1. whether you served as clerk to a judge, and if so, the
name of the judge, the court, and the dates of the period
you were a clerk;

No.

2. . whether you practiced alone, and if so, the addresses and
dates;

3. the dates, names and addresses of Jaw firms or offices,
companies or governmental agencies with which you
have been connected, and the nature of your connection
with each;

District Court Judge January 1, 1985 - Present

State of Louisiana
Division A, 24th Judicial District Court.

Co-instructor: Loyola School of Law Spring 1990
Civil Procedure Spring 1991
District Court Judge, Ad Hoc August 24, 1984 - January 1, 1985

State of Louisiana
Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

Instructor: Criminal law and procedure
St. Mary Dominican College 1982

it

PorToo0000026


1712

to be a lounge, and chac the Lessor was well avare of che Lessee's intentions
Ghd of the fact that zoning was inconsistent with the Lessee's plans, che
Lessee was entitled co rescind che contract of lease becauseof his inability .
to obtain a permic.

Based on che jurisprudence in Guaranty, supra, the-Court finds chat

lease in question shouldbe rescinded.
In Light of che Court's decision co rescind the lease, the defendant's
claim for pase due rent 1s found to be of no aerit.
‘The claim for past due cont is specious for a aumber of reasons.
The Court is of the opointon chac, in che interim, while this chaos vas

transpiting, there was a verbal understanding that no reat would be due.

a, there was a.

The Court also believes that, had it not rescinded the 1
provision in the lease that contenplaced “delayed possession”, vherein
rent would nor be dus.

As to damages, the plaintiff is evidencly entitled co the recurn
of che deposit and the first month's rent, which cepresents TWELVE THOUSAND
AND NO/100 ($12,000.00) DOLLARS. Additionally, plaintif€ is also enticled
to the monay he expended in promoting his enterprise together with the
expenses he incurred in building the lounge.

The records Kept of chis aborted enterprise are, at best, incouplece.
As is evident by the uewspaper ads ineroduced ar trial by defendant, tbare
were some advertising costs expended co promote the club. However, there are

no invoices or checks to show what sums were expended; therefore, the Court

cannot award this as an iteu of damage. Ploding chrough platotiff's exhibits,

che Court finds che Yollowing damages were incurred due to defendant's breach

of the least

Creative Lighting $24,000.00
Dixie Sign Deposic .

Nolen £nterprises 27,255.00

175.00

Dec. 7, 1982 50.00

Dec. 10,°1982 1169.00

Scauffer's Custom Wood Works Nov. 3, 1982 611.00

Wov. 12, 1982 $22.50

Wov. 23, 1982, 1,265.00

Dec. 2, 1982 855.00

Dec. 10, 1982 1,017.50

Dee. 16, 1982 247.50

The cotal of chis list and che recurm of che first month's rent and

856.50,
Plaintiff testified, as did another witness, chat he renoved approximarq

deposit equals $51

OME HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($100,000.00) DOLLARS in sound and lighting

PORT000000147


1658

4

considered in determining the
reasonableness of a fee include the

following:

(1) The time and labor required,
the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved,.and the skill
requisite te perform the legal

" service properly?
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to
the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employment will
preolude other employment by the
‘Lawyer:
(3) The fee customarily charged in
the locality for cimilar legal
service

(4) ‘The amount involved and the
results obtained;

(5) The. tins limitations imposed
the client or by the circumstance

(6) ‘The nature and length of the
professional relationship with the
Client;

7) the experience, reputation, and

ability of the lawyer or lavyers
~ perforning the services; and

(8) Whether the fee is fixed or
contingent.

Quantum meruit means as much as is deserved. smith v.
Neutside Transit Linee, Inc., 313 $0.24 372 (La.App. 4th
cir.1975), writ denied, 318 So.2d 43 (ba.1975). A quantum meruit
analysis properly evaluates not merely the laws experided, but the
results and benefits obtained. Smithy. Westuide Transit Lines,
Ing., supra; Keys v, Morey Hosp. of Nev Orleans, supra, at 1225.
Therefore, recovery is limited to the actual value of the service
rendered. Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., supra; Keys y.

Mercy Hosp, of New Orleans, supra.
The trial court gave oredence to Ms. Watts testimony and

found that she hed ample cause to discharge Mr. Cerullo for his
lack of candor and failure to communicate. The court further
found that Mr. Cerullo took a "wait and ses" approach to the case
and should not be compensated for that time. Ths court further
found that the estimate of the hours spent, reconstructed after
the fact and offered at trial by Mr. Cerullo, was exaggerated.

“PorRToo0000093


1851

h. In October 2000, at BB's request, Bodenheimer split two bonds on a
defendant, reducing one from a $100,000.00 commercial bond into:a $10,000.00 commercial bond
and a $90,000.00 personal surety bond. Bodenheimer reduced the other from a $200,000.00
commercial bond into a $20,000.00 commercial bond and a $180,000.00 personal surety bond.

i. On or about November 6, 2000, BBU began to pay for health insurance for
Bodenheimer’s son.

j On or about Apri] 6, 2001, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, ITI bought drinks and

dinner for Bodenheimer, Judge A, several other judges, and several of the judges’ family members

at a casino in Biloxi, Mississippi.
k. In June 2001, at BBU’s request, Bodenheimer set a $50,100.00 commercial

bondand aS175,000:00 personal surety bond on adefendant for the offense of attempted first degree

murder.
. L On or about October 21, 2001, at BBU’s request, Bodenheimer set a

$15,000.00 commercial bond.on a defendant who was a fugitive from Texas. Notwithstanding the

bond amount set by Bodenheimer, BBU charged the defendant for a $20,000.00 bond.

m. On or about October 29, 2001, at BBU’s request, Bodenheimer split a

$100,000.00 bond on a defendant who had been arrested for attempted second degree murder into

a $25,000.00 commercial bond and a $75,000.00 personal surety bond.

n On January 24, 2002, the defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III, along

with Bail Bondsman #1 and another BBU employee, bought lunch for Bodenheimer, Judge A, and

another judge at a restaurant in Gretna, Louisiana, at a cost in excess of $300.00.

°. On March 11, 2002, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, Ii bought lunch and drinks

for Bodenheimer and another judge at a restaurant in New Orleans at a cost in excess of $400.00.

p. __ Beginning in or about 2000 andcontinuing until in or about 2002, LOUIS M.

MARCOTTE, II discussed with Bodenheimer investment and/or partnership opportunities in


1740

sum of $46,799.91. Plaintiffs were interested in purchasing a boat that would
best suit their needs as an offshore fishing and sport diving vessel. Prior to
purchase, the boat was not available for a test run. The plaintiffs did travet to
Houston, Texas far the purpose of looking at an identical boat the Houston
dealership had in its yard. At that time, a number of sales representatives of
Bayliner vessels had represented that the vessel was ideally suited for offshore
fishing and sport diving. Additionally, a sales person from Wagner Marine had
contacted Bayliner Marine to verify sales literature relating to performance of
this model boat.

Bayliner’s advertising literature showed the vessel to be a suitable blue
water fishing vessel which could be expected to attain speeds of 33.1 m.p.h.
to 37 m.p.h. and cruise with a normal load at 26.8 m.p.h. @ 3500 c.p.m.
Based on these varbal and written representations, the plaintiffs purchased the
Bayliner Trophy Convertible 2560.

After taking possession of the boat, the plaintiffs found performance to

be severely lacking and the vessel to be useless for offshore fishing. The boat

would not come up to plane except at full throttle, and even then it proved
impossible to attain a speed even close to the manufacturer's suggested
performance as represented by sales literature and personnel.

On the first attempt made by plaintiffs to bring the boat fishing, the trip
was abandoned when they couldn't get enough power and ran out of gas
trying. Numerous communications were undertaken between plaintiffs and the
focal dealer as well as the manufacturer in an attempt to rectify the problems.
Various propeller modification were made at plaintiffs’ expense, to na avail.
After six months a marine surveyor was engaged by Bayliner to survey and
ascertain the cause, nature and extent of the problem and to recommend
repairs.

Bayliner surveyor, Mr. Gilligan, determined that the vessel was severely

2

PORTOO0000175


10.

1612
Have you or your spouse ever declared bankruptcy? If so, give particulars.

No,

Have you to your knowledge ever been under federal, state, or local
investigation for a possible violation of either a civil or criminal statute or
administrative agency regulation? If so, give full details, Has any
organization of which you were an officer, director, or active participant
ever been the subject of such an investigation with respect to activities
within your responsibility? If so, give full details.

No.

Have you ever been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, bar association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group
for a breach of ethics, unprofessional conduct or a violation of any rule of
practice? If so, give particulars.

No.

Have you ever been sued by a client or other party? Have you ever been a
party to any litigation? If so, give full particulars.

Clark, et al v, Edwards, et al, .
# 86-435, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Suit challenging the method of election of judges in’ Louisiana. All judges
were sued as nominal parties; we were sued in our official capacity.
Resolution: Jefferson Parish, the 24th Judicial District Court, established
Sub-districts wherein an individual candidate runs, as opposed to running
throughout the entire parish as was previously the procedure.

i fey ial ve
isi
# 413-728, 24th Judicial District Court
Declaratory judgment on constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 15:144(B)(D). All
judges were sued, we were sued in our official capacity.

2

PORTO00000047


1653

that there would be no movement of

the vehicle until he was ‘safely away

from, or inside of, the vehicle.

Under these circumstances, the court

‘concludes that Steven [sic] Douglas

breached the duty he owed to plaintiff

to exercise reasonable care in the

operation and control of his vehicle

and the risk of plaintifé’s injury

was within the scope of that duty.

Inasmuch as Steven [sic] Douglas’ negligent

conduct was a cause[~Jin{-]fact of

the accident and resulting injuries,

he is liable to plaintife.

We agree.

Regarding the final issue, quantum, we note the
trial court, in its reasons for judgment, states, ‘The
court is convinced that, under the evidence of this case,
reasonable minds could not differ as to the fact that a
much higher award of damages was justified.“ Again, we
agrea. Recognizing the well-settled legal axiom that a
trial court has wide discretion in its award of damages,
we will not disturb such an award absent manifest error,
and we find none. Accordingly, we find no error in the

. trial court's entry of the judgment N.0.V. in favor of
* the plaintife.

Other issues have been raised, which, we find,
have no merit.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed, ‘with the exception that this court
xeduces the damage award by $10,000, which is the amount
State Farm Mutual automobile Insurance Company, as the

insurer of Stephen Douglas, has already paid the plaintiffs.

AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED

PORTOOOON0N8S


1822

yi CERTIFICATE 3

I, Lisa Broussard, Official court
Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true and correct transcript of the proceedings
heard in Open Court at Gretna, Louisiana, on
October 14, 1994, before the Honorable 6. Thomas
Porteous, Judge presiding, in the matter entitled
State of Louisiana versus Aubry N. Wallace,

numbered Criminal Docket Number @9-2360.

TSA |ARD

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN_AND FOR THE PARISH OF
JEPFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thie ok day of We , 1994.

s :
PoRTO00000629


1852

several businesses. Some of these offers included financial arrangements in which MARCOTTE
would disguise Bodenheimer’s interest in the business venture.

q. _ Between September 2000 and June 2002, at BBU's request, Bodenheimer split

approximately 350 bonds and set approximately 450 bonds.

3. ymuption of Judge.

a. Beginning on a date unknown and continuing until the date of this bill of
information, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III provided Judge A with cash payments, gifts, meals, and
other things of value. In return, Judge A was available to BBU; quickly responded to the requests

of BBU; and set, reduced, increased, and split bonds to maximize BBU’s profits, minimize BBU’s

liability, and hinder BBU’s competition.
b. _Fromra date unknown through 2001, BBU furnished parking spaces free of

charge for Judge A's secretary and staff. In fact, on or about September 4, 2001, when an employee
of another judge attempted to take two of Judge A's spaces, an employee of BBU reassured Judge
A's secretary that LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, Il had given 4 parking spaces to Judge A's staff. Later
that day, the BBU employee stated that MARCOTTE gave Judge A's staff the parking spaces

because Judge A “is very good to us.”
c.’ In April 2001, at BBU’s request, Judge A set a $100,000.00 commercial bond

and $250,500.00 personal surety bond for a defendant.

4. Onorabout September 14,2001, a BBU employee called Judge A conceming
a bond for a defendant. The BBU employee told Judge A that the defendant’s family was able to
post $10,000.00 commercial bond. The defendant had been arrested on September 5, 2001 for drug
and firearms charges. On September 17, 2001, Judge A split the defendant's bond into a $10,000.00
commercial bond and a $15,000.00 personal surety bond. After being released on the bond set by
Judge A, the defendant was arrested on September 29, 2001 for bond violations and again on

December 8, 2001 for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. On or about December 12, 2001,


1744

App. 1989}; Alexander v. Burrough Comoration, 350 So2d 988; {2d Cir. App.
* 19771; LSA C.C. Article 2531.

The Court felt plaintiffs were unrelenting in their attempts to get Bayliner
Marine to make the boat pertorm properly. The Court, on the other hand, felt
Bayliner Marine had much less than a fervent interest in correcting the problem.
Bayliner Marine was also less than diligent when it came to discovery and other
aspects of the litigation which resulted in this action being very time
consuming. As to the quantum of recoverable items and damages, the Court
finds plaintiffs are entitied to the following: their original purchase price of
$46,799.91; $1,333.04 in repair work (Plaintiff Exhibit #23); $1,100.00 cost
of propellers; insurance premiums of $8,000.00; slip rental of $3,000.00; and
miscellaneous expenses of $1,000.00 for battery, fuel, oil, and general
maintenance.

The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover attorney's fees under LSA C.C.
Article 2545. Taking into consideration the hours invalved in bringing this suit
to trial and the nature of the lawsuit, the Court finds TWENTY THOUSAND
AND NO/100 ($20,000.00): DOLLARS to be reasonable attorney's fees.
Because of the complexity and time consuming nature involved in the opinions
of the experts, the Court sats expert fees in this matter at ONE THOUSAND
AND NO/100 ($1,000.00) DOLLARS per expert.

The Court further awards, consequential damages for inconveniance and
lack of use of the vessel for the past four years in the amount of TEN
THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($10,000.00) DOLLARS per litigant which totals

TWENTY THOUSAND AND. NO/100 ($20,000.00) DOLLARS.

sianeo this <YV.tey of (DLE i902. Gretna, Louisiana.

PORTO00000179


1780

psychiatrist's testimony from the sanity hearing which was °
held on November 12, 1981.

Defense counsel's examination of Dr. Shraberg at the
sentencing phase of the trial was cursory and superficial.
‘The Court finds that this may be related to their lack of
preparation with the psychiatrist. At the evidentiary
hearing, Dr. Shraberg was asked if he had participated in
any discussions with counsel before hé testified at the
sentencing phase of defendant's trial. He said he spoke
with defense counsel in the courtroom while the jury vas out
of the courtroom. Dr. Shraberg also stated that his
complete testimony at the sentencing phase of the trial took
only five or ten minutes. Evidentiary hearing transcript,
November 11, 1986, p.@3, lines 9-25.

Defense counsel did not question Dr. Shraberg
concerning the mitigating circumstances in this matter. Kr.
James Weidner questioned the psychiatrist by reading to him
the testimony he had previously given in the sanity hearing
held on Novenber 12, 1962 and inquiring if this wes still
his opinion. Trial transcript, January 8, 1982, p.29, lines
16-29; p.30, lines 1-14, Dr. Shraberg's comments concerning
what he was asked at the sentencing phase of the trial are
as follows: "Defense counsel asked me a few simple questions
concerning whether Mr. Nelson was depressed, intoxicated
and grieving at the time of the crime, to which I answered.
affirmatively. They-did not ask me to explain or elaborate
upon any of these conclusions, nor did they ask me any
questions concerning haw these factors related to Mr.
Nelson's actions and intentions at the time of the crime..."
Attachments to Application for Post-Conviction Relief,
Affidavit of Dr. Shraberg, Exhibit A, p.4. 7

It appears that defense counsel did not fully
understand the neaning of the sentencing phase of the trial.
Defendant had already been found sane. Defendant had
already been found guilty of first degree murder. In the

sentencing phase, it was defense counsel's responsibility to
-2-

PORTO00000215


1770

probative value of the photographs is not outweighed by
their prejudicial effect.”

Accordingly, the Court finés defendant's seventh claim
without merit.

CLAIM VIIT

In defendant's eighth claim he asserts that
Prosecutorial misconduct rendered his trial fundamentally
unfair.

Defendant argues that during voir dire examination the
Prosecutor referred to photographs, which the jurors would
view during the course of the trial, as distasteful and
gory. Tt is defendant's contention that the prosecutor
began the trial with an emotional appeal to the jurors.

Defendant states that during voir dire examination, the
prosecutor told the jurors that during the trial they would
have to make a decision concerning the defendant's life.
Defendant argues that this comment made it appear to any of
the jurors chosen that they would have to find defendant
guilty of first degree murder.

Defendant contends that during opening statement the
prosecutor referred to prejudicial material that she knew
would not and could not be admitted into evidence and by
doing this, she inflamed the jury's passion against the
defendant. Defendant argues that during the State's
rebuttal argument, the prosecutor tried to impugn
defendant's character by referring to the victim as a
degenerate and implying that tha defendant was also a
degenerate.

In Louisiana jurisprudence before an allegedly
prejudicial argument requires reversal, the reviewing court
must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by
the remarks and that such remarks contributed to the
verdict. . State v. Byrne, 483 So.2d 564 (La.1986), rehearing
denied, 107 s.ct. 243 (1986); State v. Jarman, 445 §0.24

1184 (La.1984).

-1e-

PORTO00000205


1630

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Secretariat

‘Wastington, D.C. 20530

bla 944

Sylvia Walbolt, Esq.
carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel,
smith @ Cutler, P.A.

FM: Sheila Joy .
Staff AssigtanQ, Judicial Appointments

RE: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Judge Porteous is away ona cruise. Mr. Watkins! office has
indicated you would like to have some information regarding Judge
Porteous so you could begin work on his evaluation immediately.
The following is a DRAFT of Judge Porteous! Personal Data
Questionnaire (without attachments). He will be back in his
office next week and will send you A final copy with attachments.

I will be in my office tomorrow, if you need anything further.
My telephone number is 202 514-1607.

PORTOOORONES


1843

(Entered: 09/01/2006)

08/28/2006 45

JUDGMENT as to Louis M Marcotte, Ill (1), Count(s) 1, sentenced 8/28/06 ;
defendant to be imprisoned for 38 months; upon release, defendant placed on
supervised release for 3 years; defendant fined $15,000; special assessment of
$100; defendant to surrender by 12:00 noon on 10/27/06. Signed by Judge
George P Kazen on 9/6/06. (jt, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

08/28/2006 46

JUDGMENT as to Lori M Marcotte (2), Count(s) 2, sentenced 8/28/06;
defendant placed on probation for 3 years; defendant fined $15,000; special
assessment of $100 . Signed by Judge George P Kazen on 9/1/06. (jtd, )
(Entered: 09/08/2006)

08/28/2006 42

MOTION for Issuance of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture of Property by
United States of America as to Louis M Marcotte, I. (jtd, ) (Entered:
09/08/2006)

08/29/2006 44

ORDER TO SURRENDER as to Louis M Marcotte, III on 10/27/06 by 12:00
noon. Signed by Judge George P Kazen on 8/28/06. (jtd, ) (Entered:
09/01/2006)

09/08/2006 48

ORDER granting 47 Motion for Forfeiture of Property as to Louis M Marcotte
IH (1). Signed by Judge George P Kazen on 9/6/06. (USM-3cc) (jtd, ) (Entered:
09/08/2006)

11/22/2006 | 49.

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Alter Judgment re 45 Judgment, by Louis
M Marcotte, Ill. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Westling, Richard)
(Entered: 11/22/2006)

11/28/2006 50

ORDER granting 49 Motion to Alter Judgment as to Louis M Marcotte III (1).
‘The portion of the Judgment and Conviction entered on 8/28/06 which
recommended that ‘defendant be designated to a facility where he may
participate in a substance abuse program’ is clarified and modified to reflect the
recommendation that defendant be designated to a facility where he can be 7
enrolled in the Bureau of Prisons 500 hour Residential Drag Abuse Program
(RDAP). Signed by Judge George P Kazen on 11/28/06. (jtd) Copies sent to
PTS, USP, USM & BOP. Modified on 11/28/2006 (jrc). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

07/23/2007 | SI

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Forfeiture of Property by United States of
America as to Louis M Marcotte, III. (Attachments: # | Affidavit # 2 Proposed
Order)(Nguyen, Loan Mimi) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

07/24/2007 | 52

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re $1 MOTION for Forfeiture of Property
filed by United States of America. Filing attorney did not include a certificate
of service with the motion. All filings must contain this certificate. No further
action is necessary. (jtd) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

07/26/2007 | 53

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE as to Louis M Marcotte, III. Currency as
described in document is to be forfeited to the USA and shall be disposed of in
accordance with law. Signed by Judge George P Kazen on 7/25/07. (Icc: USM)
(jtd) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

https://ecf laed. uscourts. gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?92349837093 1478-L_567_0-1 10/15/2008


1654

‘WOT DESIGNATED
FOR. PUBLICATION
JUDY WATTS, ON BEHALF NO. 93-CA=811
OF RER MINOR DAUGHTER,
POLLY WATTS COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
a. C, PENNEY AND LIBERTY STATE OF LOUIGIANA

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

ON APPEAL FROM THE 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF LOUISIANA, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
NO, 306-035, DIVISION “A®
‘THE HONORABLE C, THOMAS PORTEOUS, JUDGE

FEB 23 1994

SOL GOTHARD
7 JUDGE

(Court composed of Judges Charles Grisbaum, Jr., Edward A.
Dufresne, Jr. and sal Gothard.)

PATRICK J. SANDERS
3200 Ridgelake Drive, Suite 100

Metairie, Louisiana 70002

Attorney for Intervenor/Appellant (Thomas Cerullo}

DANIEL J. MARKEY, JR.
5559 Canal Boulevard

Now Orleans, Louisiana 70124

Attorney for Defendant In Intervention (Lawrence J, Hand)

AMENDED AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED

. PoRTOO0000089


1858

enclosinga fraudulent real estate appraisal dated December 29, 1999 on real property located at 1708
Williams Boulevard, Kenner, Louisiana indicating it was worth approximately $146,000.00 when
in fact, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III and others known to the United States Attorney, well knew
it was worth significantly less than the appraised value. Additionally, MARCOTTE and others
known to the United States Attomey, in the same mailing, sent Amwest an Act of Mortgage for
$150,000.00 on 1708 Williams Boulevard, Kenner, Louisiana, knowing that the actual value of this
property was significantly less, all designed to further induce Amwest to release approximately

$150,000.00 from the BUF to BBU.

e. On or about January 4, 2000, Amwest mailed a check payable to BBU in the

‘sum of $150,000.00 to LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III which was thereafter deposited into the

account of BBU.. . . :
£- In orabout May of 2001, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, IIL, and others known

to the United States Attomey, knowing that Amwest was experiencing significant financial
difficulties and fearing that his personal residence would be entangled in a protracted insurance
liquidation proceeding in another state, devised a scheme to release his personal residence as
collateral to the BUF. This scheme included the substitution of other real estate of inferior value to
his personal residence as collateral.

& On or about May 31,2001, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III, and others known
to the United States Attomey, mailed a letter to Amwest enclosing a fraudulent real estate appraisal
dated May 24, 2001 on real property located at 415-417 Derbigny Street, Gretna, Louisiana
indicating it was worth approximately $180,000.00 when in fact MARCOTTE and others known
to the United States Attomey, well knew it was worth significantly less than the stated appraised
value. Additionally, MARCOTTE and others known to the United States Attomey, in the same
mailing, enclosed another fraudulent real estate appraisal dated March 25, 2001 on real property
located at 418-420 South Broad Street, New Orleans, Louisiana indicating that it was worth

approximately $275,000.00 when in fact MARCOTTE and others known to the United States

14


1689

St. Clement of Rome School Member 1978-present
Men’s Club (Parents’ Club) President 1982-83

Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity

Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity

American Red Cross

Brother Martin High School Parents’ Club Vice-President - 1989-90
29. List any honors, prizes, awards or other forms of recognition which you

have received (including any indication of academic distinction in college or
law school) other than those mentioned in answers to the foregoing

questions.
Morality in Media Louisiana 1983
Finalist - Robert Lee Tullis 1971

Moot Court Competition
LSU Law School

USL - Criminal Justice Program - January, 1980
Certificate of Appreciation
Criminal Law and Procedure Update

30. Describe any pro bono or community service activities in which you have
engaged.

As an Assistant District Attorney and as an Assistant Attorney General, I
was precluded from indigent defender representation in criminal cases.
Louisiana has NOLAC to assist indigent in civil matter.

“oT Seve the cotmunity,” since 1978; 1 continde tolbe “active with the ~
Recreation Department for the Parish of Jefferson in coaching and
refereeing.

31. State any other information which may reflect positively or adversely on

28

PORTOGO0001 24


1763

Louisiana to go to the store. During the conversation,

“Looking at me, you do not think I would

Nelson volunte
kill anybody." At this point, Trooper Melgaard ended the
conversation and summoned Officer William Pheil, who gave
Nelson his Miranda rights at approximately 10:00 P.M. after
those rights were fully explained and Nelson signed a
waiver, the officers tegan to question him.

Nelson had been hitchhiking to New Orleans when he was
picked up by Beauvais Randall in Bunkie, Louisiana. Randall,
apparently a transvestite, was dressed like a woman. on
their way to New Orleans, Randall, sensing the defendant had
little money, offered to pay Nelson $50.00 to take pictures
of him in women's clothing. Following their arrival at
Randall's apartment in Jefferson Parish, the two men went to
sleep. Randall slept in his bedroom and Nelson slept on the
living room couch.
ext morning when he was

Nelson was still sleeping the
awakened by Randall, who was dressed in a black negligee.
Randall demanded that the defendant begin the proposed
photography session immediately. He asked Nelson to bind
him with ropes in various positions that were modeled after
certain magazine photographs and then to take the photo~
graphs of him in those positions. During much of this
period Randall used a falsetto voice and, as part of his
sexually deviate nature, accused the defendant several tines
of planning to beat or even kill him. Lane Nelson was
repulsed by Randall's behavior, but nonetheless agreed to do
as he was asked in return for the $50.00 he had been
promised.

After one or two hours of the photography session,
defendant asked Randall to advance him $20.00 from the
proposed $50.00 payment so that he could buy something to
drink. Randall agreed, and Lane Nelson went to a nearby
convenience store, where he purchased two six-packs of
16-ounce cans of beer, and a pint of vodka. During the

remainder of the afternoon, Nelson consumed all of these

alcoholic beverages.

PORTOO0000198


1692

pezse7rsl2se
agninst defendaned, Carriage Court Condonintuns, Pierre Villere, and Behrvil
Group, Inc., jointly, severally and in solido in che amount of THIRTY~THREE
‘TSOUSAND AND WO/100 ($33,000.00) DOLLARS as rhe amount required by FSLIC to
release the unse from axiating noregnges-

‘TT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED thac judgment for mental
anquish, anxiety, humiliacion and embarrassaent in favor of David gudin
against the defendants, Carriage Court Coodoniniuas, Piecre Villere, Vilnark
Brokers, Inc., Behrvil Group, Inc., Ann Zehentner and Bobbie Henderson in the
amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($200,000.00) DOLLARS joiatly,
severalty end ta solide,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment
warding atcorney fees in favor of David fgudin aad against defendaacs,
carriage Court Condosiniuns, Pleree Villere, febrvil Croup, Tacs, TElaate
brokers, Ince, Ana Zebenener and 8obvie Henderson, fotnely, severally and
im selido in the amount of TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINETY AND H0/100 ($27,090.00)
DOLLARS together with legal interest fron date of judicial demand and all cost
of these proceadings.

sever #240, BSODERED MD STEAED ehts Zor of Tune, 1987,

at Gratoa, Louisiana.

PORTODOQOBI 37-4



1599

Defense Counsel:

Ralph Whalen

3170 Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
(S04) 582-2333

6. — State of Louisiana v. James Nolen
Criminal # 81-4045, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "J", Judge Jacob Karno
Citation: 461 So.2d 1073 (La. App. 5th Cir 1984)

Jury Trial, August 12, 13, 14, 15th, 1982.
Sole Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Aggravated rape case
involved a vicious attack on a young woman. Defense put the victim’s credibility
at issue because she voluntarily left with the attacker and she was employed as a
bartender. Throughout the trial the defendant remained belligerent, this compelled
the trial judge to issue warnings, Use of restrains were later necessitated in order
to maintain appropriate trial decorum.

Final Disposition: Jury verdict - Guilty as charged; Sth Cir. Ct of Appeals -

Affirmed.

Defense Counsel:
Phil Johnson
(imactive) The Louisiana Bar Association reports no current address for this

attorney and could only provide the following telephone number:
(714) 275-6066

7. State of Louisiana v. Joseph Batiste

Criminal #71-1081, 24th Judicial District Court
_ Division "A", Judge Louis DeSonier

Citation: 318 So.2d 27 (LA 1975)

Jury Trial, April 10, 11th, 1972.

19

PoRTO00000034


1724

The Court finds that the defendants, Phuong Ngo and Hien Dinh, were

the operators of the Queen Bee on the night of the shooting and that the hail was in

their contral and custody. However, the Court is not of the opinion that they are

liable to plaintiff for the injuries he suffered.

On the night of the shooting, there were five security guards hired and several
hundred people present. After the band stopped playing, the defendants permitted
the security guards to leave. The plaintiff and many other customers were still on the
premises. Testimony as to the exact number of people on the premises at the time of
the shooting varied.

Plaintiff testified at trial that he though it could have been as many as 30.
Hien Dinh testified to a lesser number at trial, however, in deposition testimony she
was quoted as saying 50 people were present at the time of the shooting. At trial,
Cuong Nguyen, a member of the Vietnamese Airborne Group, testified that only
friends remained at the time of the shooting and not members of the generat public
but also testified that Cao was only known slightly. He testified that 15 to 20 people
were (eft.

As to the time the security guards left, one estimation was that the security
guards were on the premises from 9:00 PM until around 1:30 AM and that the
shooting occurred approximately 30 minutes later at 2:00 AM. Cuong Nguyen
testified that he though 40 to 45 minutes had elapsed between the time the band
stopped playing and when the shooting occurred.

‘The court is of the opinion that the frame of time between the,shooting
and the discharge of the security guards was relatively long and that there was not
a sufficient number of persons remaining to warrant security. The persons who
remained on the premises were known, for the most part, by the owners of the
lounge. Thuyen Cao gave no indication of violence earlier that night; nor was there
testimony that it was reasonable to anticipate that this man'was violent, There was,
in fact, no reason to anticipate violence of any sort to occur after the security guards
had been discharged.

Dr. Wade Schindles, an expert in security call by plaintiff, wes of the opinion

PORTO00000159


1747

of negligence and (b) it erroneously increased the quantum
award.

The record shows that on November 25, 1981, as
Stephen Douglas was about to depart an evening party attended
by various neighborhood teen-aged males, Stanton Stark
walked up to the passenger door of Douglas’ vehicle. Besides
Douglas, three other males were inside the car. Shortly
after Stark approached, Douglas pylled away, made a U-turn--
in part, across a neighbor's lawn--and headed south down
Sandra Avenue towards Lafreniere Street. For whatever
reason, Stark, who had been positioned in the open doorway
of the car, remained so positioned, riding on the door
sill as the car followed this path. After the car straightened
out on Sandra, Stark either fell or jumped off, struck
his head, and later died. .

In addressing the initial issue, we note the
plaintiffs in this suit oppose GEICO, their uninsured/under-
insured motorist carrier. State Farm paid its $10,000
Lfability limit for coverage on the Douglas auto and was
dismissed at the close of the plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs
concede that GEICO is entitled to a $10,000 credit for
the sum paid by State Farm. Calculated in the initial
judgment, the credit must have been omitted inadvertently
from the J.N.0.V¥. Accordingly, we amend the judgment of
the trial court to incorporate the $10,000 credit.

We now turn to the remaining issue and initially
address whether the trial court errad in reassessing the
negligence of the parties. The jury found that Stark assumed
the risk of injury. It also specifically allocated fault

at 44 percent to Douglas and 56 percent to Stark. In casting

PORTO00000182


06/23/04
reer ors

BS Taso ones AND ACEOTOL - Tale
2. ea oo nd ann gla md wa ae Yn do
Fenn gc gaara sean ae ee cin he ane
(cocaine, amphetamines, otc), depressants (barbiturates, methaqualons, tranquilizers, etc.) haftucinogenice (LSD, PCP,
Sto neTE ne ntaen you peerage os on be proved ae yin

proceedings egainel you) =
bo, “Have you aiperoneed potion (Seay ACNE, OvERERS, [al MART, Wa) OTOH a OU PourURS TP
Mapa gece sont? ax |
you anewerad "Yes" fe question aor B above, provide viatngwtha types of substances, 6 Fake of fe aig a
taoohed,

eta tng Yor be wi gl ae Include any woament oF courealing
repeat —

26 YOURINVESTIGATIONS RECORD
4, Has the Usted States Goverment ove lovestgatad you background? "Yes," ute he codes tha ftw to provide the
taquetd norton bon "Yeas but you cr roa ne vestgag agency ender senaty casas cated,
snter “Other agency code or clearance code, a appropriate, and “Don't iow” of “Dos recall” under the "Omer
AAgoneyTM heading, below. i your respon Is “Ho,” or you dort know ar car cecal you wore hveddgaied an cl src,

chock to "Wo" Box.

$= Daas pr Jo tec Raiod

2 Sow open $2 Treeuy Owpemon [4 corte
Lone Boece fa

Yo towiday have od ov had cla pcan lea wneud oho, Bar
var baen dabeired fom government employment? H "Yea" ave dae of acon and agency
‘Dap RY Taig hae oar “RTS Fa TR

_ BT YOUR FINANCIAL AECORD
2, Inte last 5 year, have you ofa company ave which you exercised some contol, ted for barkujtcy, bean declared

serkunt bon lect x fe hd glue ned agent you ke ade? yeu enenwed vege Lg:
Provide data of nial econ and othr nkrmaton request k '
Baia icidauabesaaknad liceiiatiaiehoasiioniabinilbcel Nace Wd

spirit

pprrid

mals L bit
'b, Are you now over 180 days delinquent on any lean ar financial x? Indlude foans er: funded or Yea | No
Loe Lo. LS
erpienrtomns annie Dement me tates El
ee
aa

Enter your Social Security Number before going to the next page
Pages”
- > PorTovo000010



1774

3B, The sentencing phase
It is the opinion of this Court that a capital

sentencing hearing in Louisiana, such as the one in this

case, is very similar to a trial. In Strickland

Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) the United States Supreme
Court reviewed a petition for habeas corpus filed by a
defendant who had received the death penalty for a murder
conviction and aesérted that he had been denied effective
assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court held:

A capital sentencing proceeding like the
one involved in this case, however, is
sufficiently like a trial in its
adversarial format and in the existence

of standards for decision..., that
counsel's role in the proceeding is
comparable to counsel's role at trial = to
ensure that the adversarial testing process
works to produce a just result under the
standards governing decision. Por purposes
of describing counsel's duties, therefore,
Florida's capital sentencing proceeding
need not be distinguished from an ordinary

trial. Strickland, 104 $.ct. at 2064.
Therefore, this Court will review defense counsels’ actions

at the sentencing phase of defendant's trial, according to
the duties expected of counsel at trial.
Defense counsel presented only three witnesses at the

were: Dr,

sentencing phase of the trial. The witness.
Shraberg, Linda Nelson, who is the defendant's sister, and
the defendant. one of the defense counsel, Mr. Samuel
Stephens read to the jurors the testimany of Dr. Richoux,
which had been transcribed at the defendant's sanity |
Rearing. At the evidentiary hearing in this court, Mr.
Samuel Stephens was questioned as to why Dr. Richoux was not
present at the sentencing phase of the trial. His reply was
"Because I believe he was unavailable and I (did) not have
him under a continuing subpoena." Evidentiary hearing
transcript, November 12, 1986, p.126, lines 23-25.

At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Samuel Stephens
testified that in hie opinion the defendant had committed
the crime of manslaughter. Therefore, his preparation for

trial consisted of a manslaughter defense. Evidentiary

-15-

PORTO00000209


1707

24TH JUDICTAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
~ STATE OF LOUISTAMA

Wo. 285-171 DIVISION “a”

EDGAR CARLSEN
vs.

MEWAFFEY & DAIGLE, INC., ET AL

FILED: , 1987 DEPUTY CLERK:
REASONS FOR JUDGHENT

This cause has been suboitced to the court on motion of plaintiff
for a judgaenc notwithstanding the verdict to amend the jury's avard as to

general damages, and/or additur and a aotion for a new trial.

‘The coure ds of the opinion chat the instant case warrants 2 judgment

notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of general damages.
, The court is convinced that under the evidence of this case reasonable
minds could not differ as to the fact chat a much higher avard for general
damages vas juscified.

The present avard is clearly out of Line with che evidence presented
in che case and ocher awards. Other awards, while not used for achieving
uniformity serves as an aid in determining whether 2 particular avard is so
out of line that reasonable winds could uot differ 4s to the amount of dansges.
. Fifth CircuLe Coure of Appeals, Réley v. Winn Dixie of
Louisiana, Tsc., 489 So. 24 931, the court found a jury avard of THIRTY THOUSAND
‘AND NO/100 ($30,000.00) DOLLARS for generel damages for a lumbar laninectoay to be

In a recent cas

Anadequate and found che low range for such an injury to be ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
AND HO/100 ($100,000.00) DOLLARS. The court there cousidered the following
Jobnson_v. Wicks, 356 So. 24 469 (Let Cir. 1977) ~ ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN

cases
‘THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR AND WO/100 ($113,024.00) DOLLARS; Williams v, City of New
Orleans, 433 So. 24 1129 (4th Cir. 1963) ~ ONE RUMDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND

AND NO/100 ($125,000.00) DOLLARS; Abshire v. Dubois, 422 So. 2d 611 (3nd Cir. 1982)

OME HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($100,000.00) DOLLARS.
The plaincifé in che inseant case has undergone two surgical intervencions

a9 a direct result of che accident.

Plainciff suffered a ruptured disk as a result of the accident for which
he had co undergo a fusion. As a complication of that surgery, plaintiff also:
had to undergo a mastectony as a result of a breast grovth which resulted from

che use of a drug prescribed after his surgery.

PORTO000001 42


1861

5. On March 9, 2002, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, ITI and Bai) Bondsman #2. had a
#2 $100.00 a

conversation in which Bail Bondsman #2 explained that he bad been paying Deputy
week, Bail Bondsman #2 stated, “I have to go outside and tell you this. Ihad to get, um, [Deputy
#2) ahundred dollars. That alright, huh?” LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III asked, “For what?" Bail
Bondsman #2 responded, “Because Lori told me to doit every week.”

6 Onorabout June 11,2002, LORIM. MARCOTTE caused to be mailed BBU Check
No. 6212 as payment for BBU’s cellular telephone bill, including the cellular telephone given to

Deputy #3.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code; Section 371.
NOTICE OF RACKETEERING FORFEITURE
1.» Theallegations of Count 1.of this bill of information are realleged and incorporated
byreference as though set forth fully herein for the purpose of alleging forfeiture to the United States
of America pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963.
2. LOUISM. MARCOTTE, III
a. hasinterests which he acquired and maintained in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1962, making all such interests subject to forfeiture to the United States of
America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(1);
b. has interests in, security of, claims against, and/or property and contractual
Tights affording him a source of influence over the enterprise which he established, operated,
controlled, conducted and participated in the conduct of, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1962, thereby making all such interests, security, claims against, property and contractual
rights wherever located, and in whatever names held, subject to forfeiture to the United States of
America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(2); and
c. has property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which he obtained
directly and indirectly from racketeering activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section


1715

LAL DESTR(CT COURT FOR TYE PARISI OF JEFFERSON

24TH Jv!

‘STATE OF LOULSLANA

NO. 355-201 DIVISTON
PAUL KIDDING, ET AL
VERSUS
"DR. RANDALL A. WILLIAMS

FILED: 1990 DEPUTY CLERK:
REASONS FOR_JUDGNENT

This maccer come co crial on a claim for medical malpraccice
againse Dr. Williams alleging lack of informed consent and negligence

in che performance of surgery.

Paul Hidding, vas examined by Dr. Williams on December 10, 1984
ACT scan vas lstee performed and a diagnosis of spinal scenosis vas
confirmed . Surgery was performed on December 17, 1984.

The day before surgery, December 16, 1984, Dr. Williams visiced
plainci€e co inform hin as co the nature of che surgery. The disclosures

ade ac choc

acing Cora+the basis of che Court's finding of lack of
Saforaed consenc. “.
On che issue of informed consent, plaintiff has alleged cuo

separace theories. The first of vhich is chat Or. Wi2liaes failed to

inform plaintiff of the posstble loss of bladder and/or bowel control.

The second chruse of plaintiff's argupent is chac Dr. Randall

Wiliams was suffering from alcohol abuse in Decenber, 1984, and had an
affimative obligation to infora che paciene of his alcoho? problem,
thereby giving him che option of eicher obtaining a different orthopedic
surgeon to perform che lumbar laminectomy or making the decision to
continue on with Dr. Williams, Ic is this second argument that the Court
finds of consequence.

Research of Louisiana jurisprudence has revealed no case direccly

ry the Coure does have the benefit of a

ow point cf this issue, hove
wedical review panel and the testimony of Dr. Russell Levy.

The pane? decided char “chere is a material issue of fact aoc
requiring experc opinion, bearing on Liability for consideraction by che

Court",

Dr. Russell Levy, one of che physicians who’ sac on che panel,

appeared ac crial of this mater. Dr. Levy testified chat this was a

PORTOOOG00150


1813

D .2y-200n7 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Preretiretittitiirtttetritsets

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO, 89-2360

vs. DIVISION "AN

AUBREY WALLACE
peeeecrrrrrererritrtrrrrritity

PROCEEDINGS taken in the above
numbered and entitled cause before the Honorable G.
Thomas Porteous, Judge presiding, on September 21,

1994.

APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff:
Michael Reynolds
For the Defendant:
Bruce Netterville

Reported by: Lisa Broussard, Official Court
Reporter

PORTO00000620


1721

_ ‘This Coure finds the reasoning and authoricies gore fully sex forth
rin Wibecaia's original and supplemental memoranda and exhibits in support of
Ats motion presuasive, and Ribernia's Motion for Summary Judgeent 1s cherefore
granted.
As to Hibernia's Peremptory Exception of Prescription, che Coure
{Sods chat there is no reason co coment on the exception since the Court has
granted the Sumary on the aforenentioned basis.
‘As to FNMA's Hotion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' clatas depend
upon their allegation chat other defendants were the agents of FMA. Having
reconsidered chis Motion, chis Court finds that there is no genuine issue of

material fact as to this claim and chat ao other Defendanc was che agenc of

FNMA as a matter of law for purposes of Plainciffs' claims. See Roberson

Advertising Service v. Winnfield Life Insurance, 453 So. 24 662 (La. App. Sth

Cir. 1984). The affidavic of Mr. Marsiglia and the Servicing Contract submicced
by PlaintsEts {n Opposition to FNKA'S Motion are insufficient to raise a
genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, FMMA's Motion for Summary
Judgment is also granced.

‘As to the Motions ond Exceptions filed by Berkshire, Drumm Herris and

Harris Horegage Corporation, the Court finds chac these exceptions are best
ingly dente

deferred co s trial on the merits and a

Gretna, Louisiana, this

PORTOOO000156


1k.

1614

Resolution: The matter was settled without any admission of liability or
responsibility.

Please advise the Committee of any unfavorable information that may affect
your nomination.

To the best of my knowledge, I do not know of any unfavorable information
that may affect my nomination.

34

PORTOOOOO004S


1815

EXHIBIT INDEX

EXHIBITS; DESCRIPTION PAGE RECEIVED:

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS

DEPENDANT’ S EXHIBITS

PORTOOO000622


1776

that they would have investigated and thoroughly prepared to
present the mitigating circumstances in favor of the
defendant, one of those circumstances being the defendant's
intoxication. However, this was not the case as
demonstrated by the testimony of defense attorney, Kr.
Samuel Stephens, at the evidentiary hearing held in this
matter.

When asked, “Would you describe the pre-trial
investigations you did in the case?" Mr. Samuel Stephens
replied, "It was not very much. I did not think it was too
complex. ‘The whole case against Lane revolved mostly around
the statements that ne had given the police authority from
Jefferson Parish and in the state of Florida. ‘The whole
defense was to try to attack that statement and failing that
try to give some justification for his actions." .

Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11, 1986, p.104,

Lines 20-28; p.105, line 3.
Mr. Samuel Stephens was asked the following question,
“During the sentencing phase of the trial what did you do to
Prepare for the sentencing phase of the trial?“ His reply,
"Interviewed Mr. Nelson's sister who was in California and
talk with Lane here and generally going over the family
background and trying to show the jury that he did not have
any criminal past." evidentiary hearing transcript,
November 11, 1986, p.122, lines 23-29; p-123, line 3.
Defense counsel-only presentad one witness to show
defendant's lack of criminal past - his sister. Defense
counsel's examination of defendant's sister was superficial
and ineffective, He asked the witness if she and the
defendant grew up together in their parent's home to which
she replied yes. Defense counsel asked her about the deaths
of their parents and defendant's reaction to those deaths.
Defense counsel asked defendant's sister, Linda Nelson, if |
she had ever known her brother to be a violent person to
which she replied no. Defense counsel never even questioned

the witness concerning defendant's lack of a criminal past.
--

* PORTOOO000211


1794

JU-22-1994 10:21 FR FRI NEW ORLEANS squAD 7 10 eomsea FPO?

. ATTACHMENT 2

January 1, 1985 - Present ~~"

District Court Judge

State of Louisiana

Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

District Court Judge, Ad Hoc _ August 24, 1984 - January 1, 1985
Stato of Louisiana

Division A, 24th Judicial District Court
1 was first slected without opposition in 1984 for the term to commence
January 1, 1985. At the request of the Louisiana Supreme Court, because

the Division "A" seat was vacant, I was appointed to sit as the Ad Hoc
Judge, effective August 24, 1984. I was re-elected without opposition in

1990 for the term commencing January 1, 1991.

PORTO00000301


1574

os73e4 48506 .7 ~ Bow
; i oy
ganda Fern "QUESTIONNAIRE FOR Sone eso
fried Deseo 10 SENSITIVE POSITIONS tet esos
cee cere (For National Security) “

‘20 YOUR SELECTIVE SERVICE RECORD
‘Are you a malp bom ster December 81, 19997 1 "No," go 1021. “Yeu” go 10 b. :
1. Have you registered with the Selective Service System? it ~Yea,~ provide your regiswation number, H-No,” show fie.
reason for your legal exemption below.

ae was aes
Zi_YOUR MILITARY RECORD

2, Have you evar recavad _
Dats of Dacarge on nd Yer Tipe of Diechrges

tb. a jr ar ban aj ont Ua SRSA pr ge dB OS CO Ma eee?
{ret ny ance posngr no ee sur an acon (loc non julal ancd Cactale's
mast, #0)

ras Tae TER TBAT On Bay a

=
yo fetowigtappeved to you ta Ue aa 1 yore? Yaa beg th ne recat and go Ke
proving deed eh wd tar rman requ S
[Uae me fotowing codes and erplan  reasan you employment was onda
9 Leh «pb by mits agreement folaingsegatans of ritcandict_§ Lal & jb for oar rmtone

fob by muaual aeerent allowing slogans of ror atevorble
testator perterance .
SRA NS RSET rae aro
oti
. ‘aoe
'YOUR POLICE RECORD [00 ot bole wing Ht happened bob our 18H BOAT Yes] ro

‘a, Have you ever been charged with or conoid o any (ony cfense?

Lb. “Hava you ova been charged win or cowicted of Krearie or exponen Oons0

©. “Arar carrey any charges peng agabel you trary cial ose? ‘
, “Five you ovr Been charged wi or corctod of any onsal) rlaed a lOOhGT SapeT

@. Tae sls yours, have youbom wrovied fr, charged wih, or TH any ate) fol Isied Wi taspore wa,
0, rd above? (Leave out rahe Anes of ees than $100)

yu nnvered "es" 0.89 tov ln Your ano) ae tpae ode,
a COE TOY a COTA WOR TUS] SSE | IPOS

— -

24 YOURMEDICAL RECORD“
2. Have you experienced problams on or of the fb becausa of any amatonal or mental concen?
tb, “Hava you over even a heal oate protessional lo any the lypos ol problem menichiod aboveT

1 you tawored “er ta questont ob, ofan bon.

Frter your Social Secutly Number belore going fhe next page



1808

1 _ Are you satisfied with his
2 representation?

3 | THE DEPENDANT:

4 Yes.

S |THE COURT:

6 Do you have any complaint to make?

7 | THE DEFENDANT:

8 Ro. .

9 |THE COURT:

10 At any jury trial you have the right
at to confront your accusers to compel

12 testimony on your behalf from your

13 witnesses. By entering this plea of

14 guilty you are waiving or giving up th
15 rights. Do you understand that?

16 |THE DEFENDANT:
i Yes.
18 |THE COURT:

19 If you were to go on trial in the

20 event of a conviction, that is, if the

21 jury would find you guilty you would have
22 the right to appeal. Again, in the event
23 of an appeal if you could not afford an

24 attorney one would be appointed for you

25 which would cost you nothing. By entering
26 this plea of guilty you are waiving and

27 "giving up these rights. Do you understand

32 If you pleed gsilty and this Court

PORTO00000615


1608

nomination?
No.

Please describe your experience in the entire judicial selection process, from
beginning to end (including the circumstances which led to your nomination
and interviews in which you participated).

Initially, I met with Senator John Breaux to discuss the possibility of being
recommended for the federal bench. Both Senators Breaux and Johnston sent
my name to the White House and I was recommended.

After completing multiple questionnaires, I was interviewed in Washington
by members of the Justice Department, Office of Policy Development.

The FBI and the ABA have also conducted extensive reviews of my
credentials and qualifications, along with conducting interviews.

On August 25, 1994, I was officially nominated by the President for the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.

Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee
discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner
that could reasonably be interpreted as asking how-you would rule on such
case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully.

No.

Please discuss your views on the following criticism involving “Sudicial
activism."

The role of the Federal judiciary within the Federal government, and within
society generally, has become the subject of increasing controversy in recent
years. It has become the target of both popular and academic criticism that
alleges that the judicial branch has usurped many of the prerogatives of
other branches and levels of government.

28

PORTON0000043


27.

28.

1688

a. List all bar associations and professional societies of which you are
or have been a member and give the titles and dates of any offices
which you have held in such groups. .

La. State Bar Association

4th & Sth Circuit Judges Association President - 1991
Chief Judge - 24th Judicial district Court'- 1992

American Bar Association

Jefferson Bar Association

American Judges Association

American Judicature Society
La. District Attorney’s Association “President Assistant - 1974-75
District Attorney Section

b.. List also chairmanships of any committees in bar associations and
professional societies, and memberships on any committees which you
believe to be of particular significance (e.g., judicial selection
committee, committee of censors, grievance committee).

None.

c. Describe also your participation, if any, on judicial committees, in
\ judicial conferences, and in sitting, by designation, as a temporary
member of the court which reviews decisions of your court.

La. Summer School for Judges - Panelist
2Ath J.D.C. Indigent Defender Board Committee - Chairperson: 1993
24th J.D.C. Security Committee - Chairperson: 1991 through 1994

List all organizations and clubs other than bar associations or professional
associations or professional societies of which you are or have been a
member, including civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal
organizations, and give dates of membership, offices held and honors

Chateau Estate Country Club Honorary Member 1985-present

27

PORTOO0000123


1782

causes impaixment in one's judgment and that one's impulse
control may be reduced as a result of this impairment.
Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11, 1986, p.70,
lines 3-15. It was his belief that’ Lane Nelson's impulse
control was reduced due to alcohol intoxication and the
amount of anger and grief which the defendant was
experiencing at the time, Dr. Shraberg stated, ‘And, my
opinion, unfortunately, the type of interactions that went
on was rather bazaar (sic) and the interactions between the
victim and Mr. Nelson more or less lit a fuse and having the
alcohol was like gasoline had a fuse which caused the
explosion." Evidentiary hearing transcript, November 11,

1986, p.71, lines 14-19.
At the evidentiary hearing in this matter, Dr. Richoux
testified that he believed the defendant was giossly
intoxicated by alcohol at the time of the offense.
Bvidentiary hearing transcript, November 11, 1986, p.154,
lines 14-15. Dr. Richoux explained that alcohol may affect
mental functioning in a variety of ways. Alcohol is a
central nervous system depressant and diminishes many brain
functions. In his testimony, pr. Richoux stated:

Basically, what we ere talking abaut is
this process by which urges, impulses,
or feelings, which have originated in
other sentries in the brain are monitored,
examined by the higher cordical function
and subject to censorship one might say.
Higher cordical function enables the brain
to sort’ out which feeling and impulses

: will be acted upon and which one won't.
What impulses turn to behavior and what
impulses simply remain impulses.

Higher cordical function is suppressed or
depressed by alcohol therefore alcohol
removes inhibition. The most common example
is the one that people joke about, someone's
dancing with a lamp shade on his head.
Presumably this ‘occurred because this
individual has the impulse to do or engage
in this type of behavior when he's in a
non-intoxicated state his higher cordical
functions tell hin not to because they take
into account social morays and they take
into account convention, embarrassment, and
other complex psychological functions.

When he's under the influence of alcohol
that portion of the brain simply shuts
down temporarily. Therefore, the impulses

= 23-

PORTOO0000217


1587

(10) Kenneth Poche and Scott Key v. Bayliner Marine Corporation and
Wagner Marine, Inc., 632 So.2d 1170, (La. App. 5 Cir.,Feb., 1994)

(2) a short summary of and citations for all appellate opinions where your
decisions were reversed or where your judgment was affirmed with
significant criticism of your substantive or procedural rulings;

State vy. Abadie, 612 So.2d 1 (LA 1993). Defendant made a statement
implicating himself in the murder of a seven year old girl, Raquel Fabre.
The issue of right to counsel was involved on appeal from ruling that the
statement was admissible. The Supreme Court found that defendant
sufficiently invoked right to counsel by unsuccessfully attempting to obtain
legal advice on telephone, and defendant did not “initiate “ or “reopen”
interrogation by expressing his possible willingness to talk to particular
officer in response to police’s chief's request that he submit to lie detector
test.

State v. Lindsey, 491 So.2d 371 (LA 1986). LSA-R.S. 14:71 (A)(2) Issuing
worthless checks - presumption. The statute provides that a presumption
exists, as follows: if an offender fails to. pay a check within ten days after
notice of its nonpayment, it shall be presumptive evidence of his intent to
defraud. Prior rulings by the Supreme Court led me to believe that this
presumption would be a mandatory presumption, as opposed to a permissive
presumption, hence, unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the
statute was ambiguous as to whether it created a mandatory or permissive
presumption; therefore, it is interpreted as constitutional and with lenity
toward the defendant. The Court recognized that its holding in this case was
in conflict with its prior holdings in State v. Williams, 400 So.2d 575, LA
1981) and State y. McCoy, 395 So.2d 319 (La. 1980). It explained how
those cases could be reconciled and interpreted. My lower court ruling was
vacated and the matter remanded.

Yount v. Maisano, 616 So.2d 1382, (La. App. 5, Cir. 1993); 620 So.2d 823
(LA 1993). Jury award against homeowner’s policy reversed. Exclusion in
policy for bodily injury “expected or intended by the insured." Supreme
Court reversed, finding the actions of defendant to be an intentional act and
excluded from coverage.

PORTO00000022


1582

Louisiana State University (New Orleans) 1964-1968
Bachelor of Arts - Economics
Degree Awarded: May, 1968

Louisiana State University Law School 1968-1971
Baton Rouge, LA

Juris Doctor

Degree Awarded: May, 1971

: List (oy year) all business or professional
corporations, companies, firms or other enterprises, partnerships, institutions
and organizations, nonprofit or otherwise, including firms with which you °
were connected as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee
since graduation from college.

District Court Judge January 1, 1985 - Present

State of Louisiana
Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

Co-instructor: Loyola School of Law Spring 1990

Civil Procedure Spring 1991

District Court Judge, Ad Hoc August 24, 1984 - January 1, 1985

State of Louisiana

Division A, 24th Judicial District Court

District Attorney's Office Assistant District Attorney

Parish of Jefferson Supervisor:February 1,1975-August 6,1984

District Atty. John Mamoulides Chief Felony Complaint Div.:

Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg. October 8,1973-January 31,1975

Sth Floor

Gretna, LA 70053

St. Mary Dominican College

Instructor: Criminal law and procedure _ 1982
2

PORTGQ0000017


1571

¢_| Baker's shy

Westside Shoppiag Center
Bee a SN CO BERT TOT

ie

Enter your Social Seourlly Number

‘Standard Form 668 (Gack)

"UE Genet Prwng oe A= BINGO cemiber
~ my PORTOOGO0G006


24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 263-172 DIVISION "A"
IN TEE MATTER OF THE
WRONGFUL DEATH OP STANTON STARK
PILED: + 1985 DEPUTY CLERK:___|
SuoGmENT
This cause having been submitted to the court Sitmeding?
of plaintités for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to amend

the jury's attribution of liability, and damages, and/or additur,
and a motion for a new trial.

Considexing the law and evidence, the court finds that
there is no basis in law or fact to support the conclusion of the
jury as to Liability and damages.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND OECREED that the verdict of
the jury in the above entitled and numbered cause be, and it is
hereby set aside, and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is
granted as to liability and damages as follows:

Steven Douglas is found to be ONE HUNDRED (100%) PERCENT

at fault; that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff; John stark,
in the amount of FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($40,000.00) DOLLARS,
and plaintifs, Mxs. Lynn Stark, in the amount of FORTY THOUSAND
AND NO/100 ($40,000.00) DOLLARS, and against the defendants,
Steven Douglas and Government Employees Insurance Company, with
legal interest from date of judicial demand, and all cost of

these proceedings.

IP IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
motion for a new trial be conditionally granted if the court's
ruling on the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed
or vacated. . :

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the

motion for additur be denied.

PORTO00000135

~r n.


1862

1962, thereby making such property subject to forfeiture to the United States of America pursuant

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(3).

3.

a

The property described above includes, but are not limited to, the following:

‘The equity in real property located at 217 Derbigny Street, Gretna, Louisiana

and described as follows:

Property currently recorded in thé name of Sisters Marcotte, L.L.C.,
and described as follows: One certain lot of ground, together with all
the buildings and improvements thereon, and all the rights, ways,
privileges, servitudes, appurtenances and advantages thereunto
belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the Village of New
Mechanickham (now part of the City of Gretna), in the Parish of
Jefferson, State of Louisiana, on the right bank of the Mississippi
River and opposite the Fourth District of the City of New Orleans,
designated by the Lot 7 of Square No. 6, which square is bounded by
Derbigny, Second and Third Streets and the upper line of the Village
of Mechanickham, on aplan byJ. A. D’Hemecourt, Surveyor, dated
November 13, 1872, in correction of.a plan drawn by J. G. Dréaux,
C.E. on March 13, 1872, and deposited in the office of W. J.
McCune, late Notary for this Parish (Jefferson), and which said lot
measures 31 feet 5 inches and 4 lines (31' 5" 4") front on Derbigny
Street, by a depth of 180 feet (180’) between parallel lines. The
improvements thereon bear Municipal No. 217 Derbigny Street,

Gretna, Louisiana;

b.

And a sumn of money in U.S. Currency which, in aggregate with the equity in

217 Derbigny Street, Gretna, Louisiana, is equal to $250,000 in U.S. Currency;

4. Ifany of the property described above as being subjectto forfeiture, as a result of any

act or omission of the defendant:

a

“ b.

cannot be jocated upon the exercise of due diligence;

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

has been substantially diminished in value; or

has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided
without difficulty;


1678
(904)581-2606

@) ~~ Paul Fuller _v. William Barattini, 574 So.2d 412, (La.App. 5 Cir.,
Jan.,1991)

Harry A. Burglass
1824 Williams Blvd.
Kenner, LA

(504). 469-2168

Gerald Wasserman

3850 N. Causeway Blyd.
Suite 630, II Lakeway Center
Metairie, LA 70002
($04)836-7300

J.B. Kiefer

1 Galleria Blvd.
Metairie, LA
(S04) 835-6441

iddi ¥. a ili , 578 So.2d 1192,
(La. App. 5 Cir., April,1991)

Gregory F, Gambel

Byron J. Casey, I
Energy Centre - Suite 1810
1100 Poydras Street

New Orleans, LA 70163
(504)582+2112 & 582-2114

Robert Garrity
1905 Hickory Ave.
Harahan;-LA-70123
(904)738-1111

Lloyd W. Hayes
Katherine B, Muslow

17

PORTO00000113


1637

Gwenty - Fourth Indicial Bistrict Gout
PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Greine

-September 15, 1994.

Coumittee on the Judiciary

Attn: Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-6275

Dear Senator Siden:

Pursuant to the request from the Judiciary Committee, enclosed
is the original and two copies of the Motion to Dismiss in the
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Indigent Defender Board, et als vs.
The State of Louisiana, et al, No. 413-728, 24th Judicial District
Court. Also enclosed is the Writ Denial in Steven Augustus, et al
vs. State of Louisiana, through its Governor, Edwin Edwards, et a:
Parish of Jefferson, Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Div. "D",
No. 427-921.

The Augustus and Sierra cases cited in the confidential section
of the Senate Questionnaire may be confusing. Originally, Augustus,
et al vs. State of Louisiana, Governor Roemer, et al, 90-4667, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, was decided in federal
court and declared LSA-R.S. 13:994(B)(1),(2),(3) to be unconstitutional.

Simultaneously, Augustus and Sierra were filed seeking a return
of the funds collected pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:994(B)(1),(2),(3). Only
Augustus proceeded to trial because all parties agreed that. the iesues
were identical in Sierra and the decision in Augustus would be
dispositive in the Sierra case.

Accordingly, the denial of writs in Augustus makes the state
court proceedings final.

If any further information is required, please advise.

Sincerely,

PORTEOUS, JR.

GIPjr/rd
Enclosures

bec: Nancy Scott-Finan

PORTGO0000072


1775

hearing transcript, November 11, 1986, p.110, lines 15-22;
P.111, lines 14-18. rt is clear from a reading of the trial
transcript and the information obtained at the evidentiary
hearing that defense counsel had not prepared for the
penalty phase of the trial because they thought there would
be none.

In Strickland v. Washington, 104 $.Ct. 2052/1984) the

United States Supreme Court developed a two pronged test to
determine if counsel's assistance was so defective as to
require reversal of a conviction or death sentence.

Pirst, the defendant must show that counsel's
performance was deficient. This requires
showing that counsel made errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as the
“counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the
Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must
show that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense. This requires showing that
counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive
the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose
result is reliable. Strickland, 104 S.ct. at
2064.

In assessing counsel's performance hindsight is not an

accurate tool.

A court deciding an actual ineffectiveness
claim must judge the reasonableness of
counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of
the particular case, viewed as of the time
of counsel's conduct. Strickland, 104 $.ct.
at 2065.

The facts of this particular case are that Lane Nelson
had been indicted for the first degree murder of Beauvais
Randall, At trial, defense counsel presented the defense of
intoxication under La.R.S. 14:15. However, the jury found
that the defendant's intoxicated condition did not preclude
the presence of the specific criminal intent necessary for
the commission of first degree murder. The jury found the
defendant guilty of first degree murder.

Once the defendant was found guilty of first degree
murder it was the role of defense counsel to present as much
mitigating evidence as they could so that their client would
have a chance to escape the death penalty. Tt seems logical
that they should have realized that there was a possibility

the defendant may be convicted of first degree murder and
~ 16 -

PORTOO0000210


1592

District Attorney’s Office Assistant District Attorney
Parish of Jefferson Supervisor: 2/1/75 - 8/6/84
District Atty. John Mamoulides Chief Felony Complaint Div.:
Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg., 5th Floor 10/8/73 - 1/31/75
Gretna, LA 70053

City Attorney’s Office City Attorney
City of Harahan TI82 - 8/23/84

6437 Jefferson Hwy.
Harahan, LA 70123

Porteous & Mustakas Partner
3445 North Causeway Blvd. April 1980 - August 1984
Metairie, LA 70002

Porteous, Lee & Mustakas Partner
139 Huey P. Long Ave. * February 1976 - April 1980
Gretna, LA 70053

Edwards, Porteous & Lee Partner
139 Huey P. Long Ave. - August 1974 - January 1976
Gretna, LA 70053

Edwards, Porteous & Amato Partner
139 Huey P. Long Ave. October 1973 - July 1974
Gretna,.LA 70053

Attorney General Special Counsel
State of Louisiana 9/LO/71 -10/7/73
P.O. Box 94005

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

b. 1. What has been the general character of your law practice,
dividing it into periods with dates if its character has changed
over the years?

General Civil Practice - in private practice & City Attorney

Criminal Prosecution - Attorney General & District Attorney

n

PORTOO0000027


1711

+ Te was clear co he court chat Lessor’s over-zealousness to lease
Kis locacion led him co compromise negotiations in che instanc matter. The
Coure believes thac defendant represented to plainciff thac parking was not
going to be a problem, cor vas it going co be a problem to obtain a building
permit. The Coure concludes that plaintiff placed Neavy reliance on these
scaceneats and vould not have entered {neo 4 lease at chis location but
for these assertions. The Court finds that lease was void from its inception
because of error occasioned by che failure of the Lessor to disclose the crue
status of che propercy and because of plaintiff's induced and mistaken belief
chae there vere no obseacles or serious problems co renedy before 2 permie could

be obtained.

The Court is convinced that Willfam Barattini was’ fully aware of

the rescriccions and impediueaes to obtaining a building permit and made

to fruicion.

representations co the plaintifé ehat did nor cor

The Courc finds thac che defendane did orally sake a coumitaent to
plaintiff to obcain che necessary building permics. The Court bases its
belief on a oumber of factors: First, the.Coure finds Mr. Fuller co be a
credible witness and is conviaced that Baracting made che representation to
him that he vould obeaia the permits. Mr. Barattini built che improvements
at Kelly Lynn's, another business, at che same location and was avare of che
parking variances needed in that case to get the pecaits.

‘The area L

ed to plaintiff was a shell. oth parties wanted che interior
finished.” Defendant's constant involvement in che’ proposed club was evidence from
the testimoay. The plans even called for a 7’ x 9' office for his use. He

Knew of che inprovenencs that were being installed; che Lighting, che stage,

the bar, and the pluabing. The defendane ceatified that he told platatife

thac he was going to cut a hole in che sidewalk so they could get to che Loe

next to his.

The Court believas that defendant succeeded in inducing plaintiff to
continue to make improvements to the property umtil that point in time when the
electrical and plumbing work could aoc be closed in for lack of inspection, which
of course could not occur since they needed 4 building perwic. Accordingly,
the Court finds che defendant liable for the expenses the plainciff incurred
up uneil that point in eine.

Tn Guaranty Savings Assurance Co. v. Uddo, 386 So. 24 670, the Court
stated that vhere substantial evidence indicated chat che principal cause or

's conceacting of the Lesaor's premises vas established

socive for the Lass:

PORTOOO000146


wne

wa we

1807

THE COURT:

No anything.
THE DEFERDANT:

No.
THE COURT:

Have you been advised by your attorney
that if I accept your plea I intend to
give you three years at hard labor
suspended, two years of active probation
and a $10 a month supervision fee? Do you
understand that?

TUE DEFENDANT:

Yes.

THE COURT:

You have the right to a trial by jury
which jury may either find you guilty as
charged, guilty of a lesser crime or not
guilty. You have the right to hire an
attorney to defend you at, that trial. If
you could not afford an attorney one would
be appointed for you.which would cost you
nothing. Do you understand that by
pleading guilty you are waiving or giving

these rights?

THE DEFENDANT:

TBE COURT:

“PORTO00000614


Birth:
Legal Residence:

Marital status:

Education:

Bar:

Experienc

Office:

Ethnic Group:

Salary:

1578
G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR.

December 15, 1946 New Orleans, Louisiana

Louisiana

Married carmella Giardina Porteous
4 children

1964 - 1968 Louisiana State University
B.A. degree

1968 - 1971 Louisiana State University
Law School
J.D. degree

1971 Louisiana

1971 - 1973 State of Louisiana
Attorney General's Office
Special Counsel

1973 ~ 1974 Edwards, Porteous & Amato
Partner

1973 - 1975 District attorney's Office
Parish of Jefferson
Chief Felony Complaint Div

1974 = 1976 Edwards, Porteous & Lee
Partner

1976 - 1980 Porteous, Lee & Mustakas
Partner :

1980 - 1984 Porteous & Mustakas
Partner

1982 - 1984 city Attorney's office
City of Harahan
city attorney

1984 ~ present 24th Judicial District court
State of Louisiana
District Judge

Gretna Courthouse Annex Building .

Second Floor, Room 200
Gretna, Louisiana 70053
504 364-3850

4801 Neyrey Drive
Metairie, Louisiana 70002
504 455-5879

Caucasian

$133,600
PORTO00000013


1709

xs ’ 246TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COVRT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
CN el STATE OF LOUISIANA

& No. 321-881 DIVISION “
‘A. PAUL FULLER and/or UNITED TALENT ASSOCTATES, LNC.

vs.
WILLIAM BARATTINI

FILED: 1989 DEPUTY CLERK:,

LUDGNENT
January 7, 1988

This maccer came on for hearing on Decenber 16, 198:
dnd neh 16 900 don chan ede avient for plot testa
oo

paso: unt WRELAS,azroray for Pace

1 UTE, Acrey or Deena

whe cure tte eeieg the padgs, th aide, snd che arent
and mevoranda of lav furnished by counsel, considering the law and evidence co
be io favor of plainciff£, for the written reasons attached hereto,

Tr 85 ORHNED, ADDED Ho REAED cae here Se Jenne Mc

dove of pained oa tte, an sane te dated, VLia
erases, ln ee soe of FLITHLRR Te FHP AEE) EITR-SE 180
50/100 ($58,856.50) DOLLARS with legal interest from date of filing waril
pa ant fo ath ent of eeen oot

sere sb, aowtin uo stay ete 29 ry ot sen,

1990, a¢ Grecas, Louisiana.

PORTOO00GO144


1752

NOT DESIGHATED

JUDY WATTS, ON BESALF NO. 93-CA-812
OF KER MINOR DAUGHTER,

POLLY WATTS COURT OF APPEAL
‘VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
J.C, PENNEY AND LIBERTY STATE OF LOUISIANA

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

ON APPEAL FROM THE 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF LOUISIANA, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
‘NO. 306-035, DIVISION “A"
THE HONORABLE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JUDGE

FEB 23 199%

SOL GOTHARD
JUDGE

(Court composed of Judges Charles Grisbaum, Jr., Edward A.
Dufresne, Jr. and 601 Gothard.)

PATRICK J. SANDERS
3200 Ridgelake Drive, Suits 100

Metairie, Louisiana ‘70002

Attorney for Intervenor/Appellant (Thomas Cerullo)

DANIEL J. MARKEY, JR. ~

5559 Canal Boulevard

New orleans, Louisiana 70124

Attorney for Defendant In Intervention (Lawrence J. Hand)

AMENDED AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED

PORTOO0000187


1597

Defense Counsel:
Sam Dalton

2001 Jefferson Hwy.
Jefferson, LA 70121
(504) 835-4289

Co-Defense Counsel:
George Troxell

4330 Canal Street

New Orleans,LA 70119
(504) 488-8800

4. isiana v.
Criminal # 76-2116, 24th Judicial District Court
Division "J", Judge Patrick E. Carr
Citation: None, defendant died while out on bond prior ‘to appeal.

Jury Trial, December 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19th, 1977.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Second Degree Murder. This
‘was a major case involving a prominent local lawyer; it received a lot of public
attention. The case was made more complex because of the health of defendant.
Medical support was provided during trial in the event the defendant required
treatment. The appearance of defendant on a stretcher invoked the emotions of the
jury and it took considerable perseverance to prevent the jury from being swayed.
by sympathy. My participation was from the inception of this case. This matter
required appearances in Federal Court, prior to trial in State District Court,
because of defendant's claim of denial of due process based on his state of health.
The Federal District Court denied defendant’s claim and favorably commended our
procedures and precautionary measures.

Final Disposition: Verdict - Guilty as charged; No appeal; defendant alleged to
have committed suicide, body found in trunk of car.

Co-Counsel for State:
Assistant District Attorney William Hall
3500 N. Hullen Street

7

PORTO00000032


1734

requested and no answer had been filed by the defendant.

During the course of his representation, Mr. Cerullo engaged in no formal
discovery. No depositions were taken, no written statements of witnesses
other than some medical reports were obtained. Mr. Cerullo was not diligent
in forwarding the scant evidence he had gathered to the insurer despite
requests from the insurance representative.

At trial, Mr. Cerutlo produced estimates of time spent on the case
showing such items as five hours for travel to the client's apartment and ten
hours to prepare a seven paragraph petition, most of which is boiler plate
language. Consequently, the Court was left with the impression that Mr.
Cerullo’s estimate of time spent on the Watts’ case was exaggerated.
Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the testimony of Mr. Cerutlo
tagarding time spent developing his theory of the case to be self-serving and of
little significance.

Mr. Cerullo’s testimony at trial showed that his only strategy was to
“wait and see*.. In a quantum meruit situation, this “waiting”, while performing
no other service, should not be compensated.

Interestingly, Mr. Cerullo claims to have spent many hours reviewing
medical texts and discussing the case with another lawyer and a chiropractor.
However, he communicated none of the medical knowledge, he supposedly
acquired, to the insurance representative in an effort to settle the case.
Whether he feamed anything that could have been significant is irrelevant since
he did not contribute it to the cause of his client despite opportunities to do so.
Accordingly, the Court gives-little weight te this testimony.

As anindication of how litte effort was put into the representation by Mr.
Cerutlo, the Court examined the eight letters he wrote during his three years of
employment. All were addressed to the insurer. Half of the letters were hand

written, two letters contained only one sentence, five contained two

4

PORTOOGO00169


1842

03/18/2004)

03/18/2004

SMOOTH Minutes as to defendant Louis M Marcotte III; Reported/Recorded
by Karen Ibos; re-arraignment held; dft enters plea of guilty to count 1 of the
bill of information; plea bargain letter filed; factual basis filed; plea accepted;
PSI ordered; sentencing to be set a later date; dft released. by Judge George P.
Kazen (jd) (Entered: 03/19/2004)

03/18/2004

SMOOTH Minutes as to defendant Lori M Marcotte; Reported/Recorded by
Karen Ibos; re-arraignment held; dft enters plea of guilty as to count 2 of the
bill of information; plea bargain letter filed; factual basis filed; plea accepted;
PSI ordered; sentencing to be set at a later date; dft released. by Judge George
P. Kazen (jd) (Entered: 03/19/2004) ;

09/08/2004

Consent to Modify Conditions of Release as to defendant Louis M Marcotte III
& ORDER adding the condition that the defendant refrain from all use of
alcohol and participate in substance abuse counseling as directed by Pretrial
Services. by Judge George P. Kazen Date Signed: 9/2/04 (jd) (Entered:
09/09/2004)

11/28/2005

MOTION to Permission to Leave the Jurisdiction by Lori M Marcotte and
ORDER granting same. Signed by Judge George Kazen on 11/29/05 (jtd, )
(Entered: 11/29/2005)

11/28/2005

27

TEXT ORDER granting 26 Motion to Travel as to Lori M Marcotte (2).
Defendant is permitted to travel to Italy from 12/12/05 through 12/22/05
provided that in advance of travel there is a new personal surety bond in the
amount of $50,000 signed by Lisa Marcotte. Further ORDER that Pre-trial
Services release defendant's passport to her for the purposes of this trip and for
defendant to return passport immediately upon her return. Defendant to provide
Pre-trial Services with an itinerary suffciently detailed for their purposes.
Signed by Judge George P Kazen on 11/29/05. (jtd, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

12/06/2005

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alma L. Chasez :Hearing to
perfect bond as to Lori M Marcotte held on 12/6/2005 ; bond papers were
executed and defendant was released (Court Reporter: Magistrate Clerical Unit)
(itd, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

12/06/2005

Personal Surety Bond Set & Executed as to Lori M Marcotte in amount of $
$50,000.00. Defendant released. (jtd, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

08/02/2006

NOTICE OF HEARING as to Louis M Marcotte, Ill, Lori M Marcotte.
Sentencing set for 8/28/2006 02:00 PM before Judge George P Kazen. (dno, )
(Entered: 08/02/2006)

08/24/2006

MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING by Louis M Marcotte, III
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Information Regarding Post-Plea Activities # 2
Exhibit B - Reference Letters)(jtd, ) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

08/28/2006

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George P Kazen :Sentencing
held on 8/28/2006 for Louis M Marcotte, III (1), Count(s) 1 and Lori M
Marcotte (2), Count(s) 2. Written judgments shall be entered, Both defendants
released under their present bonds, (Court Reporter Vic Digiorgio.)(jtd, )

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt. pl?9234983 7093 1478-L_567_0-1 10/15/2008


1754

2

In July, 1987, Ma, Watts discharged Mr. Cerullo and hired
Lawrence Hand to represent her in the action for damages. Mr.
Cerullo filed a petition of intervention in November, 1988
seeking attorney’s fees and reimbursement of certain costs. The
lawsuit was settled out of court on December 10, 1990 for a total
of $270,000.00; of which, $90,000.00 was withheld for payment of
attorney's fees. Mr. Hand received one-half of that amount, or
$45,000.00, immediately and the remaining $45,000.00 was hald in
escrow pending consideration of and ruling on Mr. Cerullo’s
claim.

After a trial on the merits, Mr. Cerullo was awarded
$5,000.00 and the remaining $40,000.00 was awarded to Mr. Hand.
Me trial court gave extensive written reasons for judgment which
indicate that the award represents payment for thirty hours of
work at $125.00 per hour. The trial court stated that, “the
court finds that Mr. Cerullo’s contribution te the ultimate
resolution of the case was minimal, sis sole accomplishment was
to interrupt prescription.” Mr. Cerullo argues that the award is
too low to fairly compensate him for his work.

The litigation record of the principal matter shows that Mr.
Cerullo filed only one pleading, the initial petition. service
on that petition vas held and, in fact, naver accomplished. Wo
depositions were taken in the three years Mr. Cerullo had the
case. At trial, Mr. Cerullo testified that he did not keep a
record of the time he spent vorking on the case. He submitted a
reconstructed summary of hours worked, asserting that he spent a

total of 262.25 hours. ©
At trial Mr, Cerullo stipulated that service on the petition

for damages was held, that there was no litigation using the
courts and, that there were no depositions or discovery of any
kind. He testified that he spent time rasearching the case,
discussing the matter with the insurance adjuster and various
nedical and legal experts. ur. Cerullo stated that he did not
move forward with the case because the injured girl was only

PORTO00000189


1838

CLOSED, MULTI

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cr-00061-GPK All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Marcotte, et al Date Filed: 03/03/2004
Date Terminated: 08/28/2006

Assigned to: Judge George P Kazen

Defendant (1)

Louis M Marcotte, [IL represented by Richard W. Westling

TERMINATED: 08/28/2006 Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver
1401 H Street, N.W.
Sth Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3324
202-326-5012
Email: rwwestling@ober.com .
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Martin E. Regan, Jr.
Martin E. Regan & Associates, PLC
2125 St. Charles Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70130
504-522-7260
Email: mregan@reganlaw.net
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

Pending Counts Disposition

18:1962(4) CONSPIRACY TO

OPERATE AN ENTERPRISE,

THROUGH A PATTERN OF

RACKETEERING ACTIVITY sentenced 8/28/06

INCLUDING BRIBERY

qa

Highest Offense Level (pent

Felony

HP Exhibit 70
https:/ect.laed.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt p1?923498370931478-L_567_0-1 10/15/2008


1835

FD-302 (Rev. 10-42)

-1-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Deteof transcription _ 8/28/94

Judge THOMAS PORTEOUS, Louisiana State Court Judge for
the 24th Judicial District, was interviewed in his office located
in Gretna, Louisiana (LA), regarding information received from
confidential source, NO T-6, on August 8, 1994.

PORTEOUS stated that he was somewhat aware of the
nature of the inquiry due to his Criminal Court Clerk, JOLENE
ACY, having been interviewed by this interviewing Agent on the
previous day. ACY had related to Judge PORTEOUS a summation of
that interview. PORTEOUS was initially asked if he recalled
having been involved in a bond reduction matter for a crininal
defendant named KEITH KLINE, who was arrested by the Jefferson
Parish Sherifr’s Office on a cocaine charge in March, 1987.
Judge PORTEOUS could not specifically recall a bond reduction
matter involving this named individual, but after being provided
with some of the information obtained from NO T-6, PORTEOUS
eemed to recall that this individual, who already had an
extensive criminal history involving narcotics violations, had a
very high bond initially set. Upon request from the arresting
officer or possibly Deputy Chief RICHARD RODRIGUE, who is in
Charge of Criminal Detectives for the Sefferson Parish Sheritt’s
Department (JPSD), he reluctantly agreed to reduce the bond.
PORTEOUS stated that if the incident that he is recalling is in
fact an incident that involved the named. subject, KEITH KLINE,
the agreement to reduce the bond was based on reporting from a
SPSD officer that

PORTEOUS further stated that if this vas
the incident he is attempting to recall, then Assistant District
Attorney PAT McC GINNITY, (who is currently in private practice as
a criminal defense attorney, with office Located on Gired Street,
New Orleans, LA, telephone would have been
Involved in’ the bond reduction discussion. PORTEGUS stated that
it ie routine for the prosecuting attorney along with the
arresting officer to be involved in a discussion regarding any
bond reductions. PORTEOUS could not recall any involvement of a
girlfriend of KEITH KLINE in monetary transactions regarding the
bond reduction. Furthermore, PORTEOUS categorically denied that

luvestiqeton on _ 8/18/94 Gretna, Louisiana 5 russ 77A-HO- of
by SA BOBBY P, HAMIL, JR./a)m. Devediewted 6/28/94

‘This document coataias neiiber recommendations nor copetasian ofthe FBI. It isthe property of the PBI and is loaned to your agency:
{it and ite contents are not to be dsiibuted outside your agencr.



1666

Sheriff Harry Lee
Parish of Jefferson

100 Huey P. Long Ave.
P.O.Box 485

Gretna, LA 70054
(504) 363-5500

Marion Edwards

(see above)

Porteous, Lee & Mustakas Partner
139 Huey P. Long Ave. February 1976 - April 1980
Gretna, LA 70053
‘You may contact:
Carlotta Cuccia
1317 Nursery
Metairie, LA
(804)833-5210

Porteous & Mustakas Partner
3445 North Causeway Blvd. April 1980 - August 1984

Metairie, LA 70002
Contact: same as above

City Attorney’s Office City Attorney
City of Harahan THI82 - 8/23/84

6437 Jefferson Hwy.

Harahan, LA 70123
You may contact:

Mayor Carlo Ferrara

(504) 737-6383

same address

d. any other relevant particulars.
None.

10. a. | What was the general character of your practice before you became
a judge, dividing it into periods with dates if its character changed

PORTO00000101


1708

The coure therefore grants plaintiff's mocion for judgment notwithstanding
“The verdict, and the verdict of the jury avarding Edgar Carlsen FIFTY THOUSAND
AND NO/LOO ($50,000.00) DOLLARS is sec aside, and che court reforms che verdict
as co general damages to ONE HUMDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($150,000.00)
‘DOLLARS.

‘The court further finds that a nev trial should be conditionally granted as
to the issue of damages if the court's ruling on the judgment notwithstanding the
verdict is reversed or vacated because the jury's avard is clearly contrary to
the law and evidence and presents good grounds to the court fot a new crial in the
interest of justice.

Gretna, Louisiana, this ‘aay of January, 1987.

ude ©

PORTGO0000143


1859

‘Attomey well knew it was worth significantly less than the stated appraised value as it had suffered
serious and devaluing fire damage on or about June 28, 2000. Moreover, in this mailing,
MARCOTTE and others known to the United States Attomey, enclosed fraudulent mortgage and
real estate security instruments securing these properties in favor of Amwest, all designed to deceive
Amwest into believing that it had received substituted collateral for MARCOTTE'’s personal
residence of equal or greater valué. Federal Express records confirm that BBU sent a mailing to
Amwest on or about June 7, 2001; and Amwest’s records confirm receipt of such a mailing.

h On or about June 7, 2001, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, IIT, and others known
to the United States Attorney, mailed a letter through a private interstate carrier enclosing fraudulent

mortgage and security instruments on 415-417 Derbigny Street, Gretna, Louisiana and 418-420
hese security

South Broad Street, New. Orleans, Louisiana in.favor of Amwest indicating |
instruments had been recorded in the official mortgage records for Jefferson and Orleans Parishes
respectively, all the while knowing that MARCOTTE and others known to the United States
‘Attomey, had cancelled or never filed these security instruments.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(4).
OUNT 2- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MAIL FRAUD

A. . AtAll Times Material Herein:

1, The allegations contained in Section A of Count 1 are reincorporated as if fully
realleged.
2. The defendant, LORI M. MARCOTTE, was a Gretna, Louisiana bail bond agent

and the Vice President of BBU.
B. ‘The Scheme:

L Beginning on an exact date unknown, but in or before 1998, and continuing until the
date of this bill of information, in the Eastern District of Louisiana and elsewhere, the defendant,
LORI M. MARCOTTE, and others, known and unknown to the United States Attomey, knowingly

and willfully devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to deprive the

15


1659

s
Given the facts of this case we cannot hold that the trial

court abused its discretion in awarding Mr. Cerullo a total of

$5,000.00 in attorney’s fe
Ne. Cerullo also complains that the court erred in failing
to award him $2,423.00 as reimbursement for outstanding advances
for medical expenses and costs related to the case. Mr. Caruilo
Antroduced copies of cancelled checks made out to Ms. Watts
totaling $425.00, two checks te the clerk of court totaling
$130.00 and several other checks for various medical expenses

totaling $689.00. Those costs total $1,244.00. Mr. Cerullo also

asks for reimbureenent for an additional $1,179.00 for litigation
costs guaranteed. The trial court judgment awarded Mr. Cerullo
xeimbursement for the initial filing fee but was silent as to the
other costs.

Recently, in Dupuis v. Faulk, 609 So.2d 1190, at 1192,

(La.App. 3rd Cir, 1992), the court stated:

The Privilege for attorney’s faces is
granted by La. R.S. 9:5001 and R.S, 37:218.
Both statutes ware amended by Acts 2989, No.
78 § 1, effective June 16, 1989, to include
the following definitions:

918002 .
Bs The term “profescional feeb",
tweed in this Section, means the

agreed upon fee, whether fixed or

contingent, and any and all other
amounts advanced by the attorney to
or on behalf of the client, aé
permitted by the Rules of

Professional Conduct of the

Youisiana state Bar Association.

B. The term “fect, as used in this
Section, means the agreed upon fee,
Whether fixed or contingent, and
any 4nd all other amounts advanced
by the atterney to or on behalf of
the client, as permitted by the
Rules of Professional Conduct of
the Louisiana state Bar .

As dation.

The Rules of Professional Conduct of the
Louisiana Bar Association with regard to the
Badvances made to a client are found in Rule
1.8(e!

(s) A lawyer shall net provide
financial assistance toa client in
connection with pending or
Sentemplated litigation, except

rt:

PorToocoo0S4


1787

GLALH XIE
In defendant's twelfth claim he asserts that remarks
made during his trial concerning judicial review of the
jury's recommendation of a death sentence improperly reduced
the jury's sense of responsibility for the penalty imposed.

This issue was fully litigated on appeal and found to be
Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984),

without merit, State

Assignment of Error Number Eleven, at p.518.
CLAIM XIII

Defendant's thirteenth claim is that, the trial court
failed to instruct the jury that it could recommend a
sentence of life imprisonment even if {t found the existence
of one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating
cizcumstances.

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the
Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the
sentencing phase of this trial.

CLAIM XIV

In defendant's fourteenth claim he contends that during
the instructions to the jury following the sentencing phase
of the trial, the trial court failed to define for the jury
the term “nitigating circumstances".

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the
Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the
sentencing phase of this trial.

CLAIM xv

Defendarit's fifteenth claim is that the trial court
failed to guide the jury regarding the function to be played
by mitigating circumstances in determining what sentence to
recommand.

The Court chooses not to address this issue, as the
Court has ordered that a new hearing be held in the
sentencing phase of this trial.

CLATM XVI

In defendant's sixteenth claim he asserts that his
sentence is excessive and disproportionate and cruel and
unusual.

~ 28
PORTO00000222


6a)

n

2

10)

a1)

12)

13)

14)

1761

Petitioner was deprived of due process
by his exclusion from a critical portion
of the trial.

The trial court improperly admitted
into evidence various inflammatory

and prejudicial photographs.
Prosecutorial misconduct rendered
petitioner's trial fandamentally

unfair.

The trial court improperly called

the jury's attention to petitioner's
failure to testify during the guilt
phase of his trial.

Petitioner was deprived of effective
assistance of counsel.

Petitioner was improperly sentenced

to death on the basis of a single
aggravating circumstance that merely
echoed an element of the underlying
erima for which he was convicted.
Remarks made during the trial concerning
judicial review of the jury's
reconnendation of a death sentence
improperly reduced the jury's sense of
responsibility for the penalty imposed.
The trial court failed to instruct the
jury that it could recommend a sentence
of 11fe imprisonment even if it found
the existence of one or more aggravating
circumstances and no mitigating
circumstances.

During its instructions to the jury
following the sentencing phase of the
trial, the trial court failed to define
for the jury the term "mitigating

circumstance".

PORTOO0000196


1579

The While House,

19

To the
Senate of the United Hater.

I nominate G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., of Louisiana,

to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of

Louisiana vice Robert F. Collins, resigned.

PORTOOOG00014


1665

Attorney General

State of Louisiana

P.O.Box 94005

Baton Rouge, LA 70804
You may contact:

Jack Yelverton

Assistant Atty. General

(504) 342-7013

same address

District Attorney’s Office
Parish of Jefferson
District Atty. John Mamoulides
Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg, Sth Floor
Gretna, LA 70053
You may contact:
John Mamoulides
same address
(504) 368-1020

Edwards, Porteous & Amato
139 Huey-P. Long Ave.
Gretna, LA 70053

‘You may contact:
Marion Edwards
District Attorney's Office
Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg., Sth Floor
Gretna, LA 70053
(504) 368-1020 and/or
Jacob Amato
901 Derbigny St.
Gretna, LA 70053
(504) 367-8181

Edwards, Porteous & Lee
139 Huey P. Long Ave.
Gretna, LA 70053

‘You may contact:

Special Counsel
9/10/71 -10/7/73

Chief Felony Complaint Div.:

10/8/73 - 1/31/75
Supervisor: 2/1/75 - 8/6/84

Partner
October 1973 - July 1974

a Partner
August 1974 - January 1976

PORTO00000100


1755

3
fourteen at the time and he wanted to know the full extent of her
injuries befora he settled the matter.

Mr. Cerullo introduced testimony from Or. Rick Saluga, a
chiropractor who treated Polly Watts for about three weeks. or,
Saluga verified that, considering travel time, eight to ten hours
would be a fair estimate of tine spent by Mr. Cerullo in
consultation. Donald Klein, an attorney, testified that ur.
Cerullo spent about ten hours discussing the matter with him.

‘The record further shows that Mr. Cerullo wrote eight
letters to Liberty Mutual during the three years he represented
Me. Watts. The laet letter, written in March, 1986 contained a
demand for $175,000.00 to settle the claim. That demand was
rejected by the insurance company and a counter offer of
$15,000.00 was made in August, 1986. ‘The matter apparently did
not proceed beyond that, and in January,of 1987 Mr, Cerullo was
discharged.

Ms. Watts testified that she had few meetings with Mr.
Cerullo, and. that these meetings usually took place outside of
his office. She complained that Mr. Cerullo was uncommunicative
and that the limited communications were fraught with
misrepresentations.

When @ party te a contingency fe
attorney before the fea is earned, the attorney’s mandate is
revoked and the contract is dissolved. Quantum meruit then
becomes the proper basis for recovery. Saucier v. Haves Dairy
Products. Inc., 373 So.2d 102 (La.1978); Keyg_v. Mercy Hosp, of
New Orleans, 537 So.24 1223 (La.App. 4th Cir,1989). In Toups v.
Brainig, 608 So.2d 246, 247 (La.App, Sth Cir.is92), this court

contract discharges his

stated:

Under Ssucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.,
373 So.2d 102 (La.1979}, the attorney fee of
a discharged attorney is to be apportioned
according to the respective services and
contributions of the attorney’s work
performed and other relevant factors as set
forth in Rule 1.5 of the Rules of
Professional conduct; which provides in
pertinent part:

(a) A lawyer‘s fes shall be
reasonable. The factors to be

PORTO00000130


1670

(504) 528-2058
3. tate isi
Criminal # 79-1114, 24th Judicial District Court

Division "M", Judge Robert J. Burns
Citation: 406 So.2d 135, (La. 1981)

Jury Trial, November 26, 27, 28, 29th, 1979.
Chief Counsel: Assistant District Attorney G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Defendant charged with: Count 1 aggravated rape;
Count 2, aggravated crimes against nature. This case required the testimony of a
10 year old victim. Case preparation was crucial. This necessitated many visits
and meetings with the child in order to gain her trust and confidence which was
essential to her trial testimony. Final Disposition: Jury Verdict - Guilty as
charged; Affirmed.

Trial Assistant for State:

Assistant District Attorney Arthur Lentini
2551 Metairie Road

Metairie, LA 70001

(504) 838-8777

Defense Counsel:
Sam Dalton

2001 Jefferson Hwy.
Jefferson, LA 70121
(504) 835-4289

Co-Defense Counsel:
George Troxell

4330 Canat Street

New Orleans,LA 70119
(504) 488-8800

4. State of Louisiana v. Leonard J. Fagot

PORTO00000105


1791

Ha :
af , ! . IE LH L 38 a
ule i i fpf
in tO U3
- u a.
i hoe
ie tt : i HI he rhea
‘a i ae
3 it if Hoo lin
a itl en ne:
ef a ty © i ss hi . : Vs
on re EL
ie gos i ju il i jt . teh
3 ~

PORTOOOO00298


1769

to commit a crime. State v. Rideau, 193
$0.24 264(1966).

Defense counsel focused his inguiry on
whether defendant on the day of the urder
had the mental capacity to form the requisite
specific intent to murder. The trial court
disallowed questions designed to elicit expert
opinion about defendant's ability to have a
specific intent to murder on the day of the
crime. The court agreed that the experts
could be asked hypothetical questions based
on the facts in evidence about Nelson and
specific questions about his mental capacity
at the time of the offense. Defense counsel
refused to accept the court's parameters for
his questioning.

This Court declines to review the constitutionality of
the above ruling rendered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana
in this matter.

Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's sixth claim
without merit.

CLAIM VIA

In defendant's claim six A, defendant asserts that he
was deprived of due process by his exclusion from « critical
portion of the trial.

The portion of the trial defendant refers to is
discussions between defense counsel, the State and the
Court. A review of the record and trial transcript shows
that these discussions, which were either in chambers or at
the bench, consisted solely of legal argument between the
attorneys and the Judge. Therefore, the Court finds that it
was not necessary that defendant be present at this
non-critical portion of the trial.

Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant ‘s claim six
A is without merit. a

CLAIM VIT
| Defendant's seventh claim is that the trial court
improperly admitted into evidence various inflammatory and
prejudicial photographs.

This issue was fully’ litigated on appeal and found to
be without merit. State v. Nelson, 459 $0.24 510, at p. 516
(La.1984). The Supreme Court of Louisiana stated that "The

-lo-

‘PorTo00000204


1760

TWENTY-FOURTH JODICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 81-3248 DIVISION “A*

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
LANE NELSON
FILED: DY.CLERK

ORDER
This matter comes before this Court on defendant, Lane
C. Nelson's, Application for Post-Conviction Relief in which
he asserts the following claims for relief:
1) Jurors were improperly disqualified
for cause.
2) ‘The State improperly was allowed to
exercise a peremptory challenge
against a juror who already had been
sworn in.
3) The tréal court improperly interfered
with the voir dire interrogation of
the jury.
4) Petitioner was denied a fair and
impartial jury because the potential
jurors were not individually
sequestered during voir dire examination.
5) Confessions made by the defendant
improperly were admitted into evidence.
6) The trial court prevented petitioner
from defending against the charges
made against him and established an
irrebutable presumption on specific
intent in the State's favor by limiting
improperly his ability to present

Psychiatric testimony.

PORTO00000195


1686

Excellent.

b. Have you in the last 10 years (i) been hospitalized due to injury or
illness or (ii) been prevented from working due to injury or illness or
otherwise incapacitated for a period in excess of ten days? If so, give
particulars, including the causes, the dates, the places of confinement,
and the present status of the conditions which caused the confinement

or incapacitation.

Dr. A. Gustavo Colon was the treating physician. Skin cancer was resolved.
May 4, 1990 - Reconstruction of postauricular concha; procedure took place
in doctor’s surgical office.

October 7, 1989-- Excision of the preauricular area; elevation of pre-
auricular flap and immediate expansion and rotation of flap.

Plastic surgery complete.

Dr. Robert E. Songy was treating physician. Diagnosis was hiatal hernia
attack. Admitted to East Jefferson Hospital in January, 1988. There have
been no recurrences.

c. Do you have a hearing or vision impairment or any other disability
which might affect your ability to perform the duties of a trial or
appellate judge? If so, please describe the disability and how your
disability could be accommodated to allow you to perform the duties
of a trial or appellate judge.

No.

d. When did you have your most recent general physical examination?

May, 1990

e-” Afe you clirrently under treatment for ai illness OF physical condition?”
If so, give details.
No.

f. Have you ever been treated for or had any problem with alcoholism

25

PORTOO0000121


1633
page 2

If you have any questions concerning this procedure, please
call Sheila Joy at 202 514-1607.

Sincerely yours,

Reames 7 Arch ——

Eleanor D. Acheson
Assistant Attorney General

cc: Robert P. Watkins, Esq.
Sylvia H. Walbolt, Esq.

PORTO00000068


10
wa
12
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

ao-

31
32

1810

Mr. Tosh went over the document with
you.
THE DEFENDANT:
Tes. :
THE COURT:

Are there any questions you have of me
or is there anything that you do not
understand?

THE DEFENDANT:

No.

THE COURT:

I, as trial judge, have entered into
the foregoing colloquy with the defendant.
I'm entirely satisfied that the defendant
was aware of thé nature of the crime to
which he has pled guilty. That the
defendant did in fact commit said crime
and that there is a basis in fact to
accept said plea of guilty. That the
defendant understands the consequences of
said plea of guilty and bas made a
knowing, intelligent, free and voluntary
act of pleading guilty to the above
mentioned crime. I therefore will accept
his plea of guilty.

Again, you have a right to a delay.
If you wish to waive that delay I can
impose sentence today.

MR, TOSE:
We will waive any delay.
THE COURT:
Under 894.1 Mr, Wallace has absolutely

PORTGO0000617



1639
Septenber 29, 1994
Page 2

Federal Bureau of Investigation as part of ny background
investigation.

Sincerely,

G, THOMAS. PORTEOUS, JR.

GTPjr/rd
Enclosures

bee: Nancy Scott-Finan

PoRTOO0000074


1768

jurors were questioned in front of the entire jury pool they
were not able to answer the questions truthfully because of
peer pressure and the fear of enbarrassment.

In accordance with Louisiana jurisprudence, the burden

is’ on the defendant to show special circumstances indicating

why individual voir dire is warranted. State v. Monroe, 397

$0.24 1258(La,1981), cert, denied, 103 S.ct. 3571(1983),

rehearing denied, 104 S.Ct. 36(1983); State v. Dominick, 354

So.2d 1326(La.1978). Defendant alleges that his case
necessitated inquiry into sensitive topics such as
homosexuality, sexual deviation and perversion. Therefore,
individual voir dire was necessary.

The record shows that jurors were individually allowed
to approach the bench and ask or answer questions. There
was no embarrassment because the jurors had an opportunity
to confer with the Court in private.

Accordingly, the Court finds the defendant‘s fourth
claim without merit.

CLAIM V

Defendant's fifth claim is that confessions made by the

This

defendant were improperly admitted into evidence
issue was fully litigated on appeal and found to be without
merit. State v. Nelson, 459 $0.24 510, at pgs.524-515
(ta.1984). Accordingly, this Court finds the defendant's
fifth claim without merit.
CLAIM VE

In defendant's sixth claim he contends that the trial

made

court prevented him from defending against the charg
against him and established an irrebutable presumption on
specific intent in the State's favor by improperly limiting
his ability to present psychiatric testimony.

This issue was fully litigated on appeal and found to
v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510, at pgs.

be without merit. St

516-S17(La.1984). The Supreme Court of Louisiana held:

«+.Evidence of a mental defect which does
not meet the M'Naughten definition of
insanity cannot negate a specific intent

-3-

PORTOOO0000203


1584

Baker Shoe Stores 1968 - 1971
Westside Shopping Center
Gretna, LA 70053
(no longer at that location)
main branch- 837 Canal St.
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 524-7904
Position: Shoe Salesman

Military Service: Have you had any military service? If so, give particulars,
including the dates, branch of service, rank or rate, serial number and type
of discharge received.

No.

Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees,
and honorary society memberships that you believe would be of interest to
the Committee.

None.

Bar Associations: List all bar associations, legat or judicial-related
committees or conferences of which you are or have been a member and
give the titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups.

La, State Bar Association

4th & 5th Circuit Judges Association President - 1991
Chief Judge - 24th Judicial district Court - 1992

American Bar Association

Jefferson Bar Association

American Judges Association

American Judicature Society

La. District Attorney’s Association President Assistant - 1974

District Attorney Section

PORTO00000019


1728

surgery. Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim with the Commissioner of
insurance on October Sth, 1989, more than a year later.
The Court finds that the action against defendants’s have prescribed

9:5628, therefore the suit will be dismissed with prejudice.

under LSA-R.:
ITIS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the exception of

prescription filed on behalf of defendants, Dr. Keith L. Kreutziger and Ochsner

Foundation Hospital, be and is hereby granted and plaintiff's suit is dismissed

with prejudice at her cost.
JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED, and SIGNED this 5, of

. 1993. Gretna, Louisiana.

PORTO00000163


1800

employer. The Judge stated "lets not sugar coat anything, in
other words you guys think I’m dirty". We replied that we had some
questions about his handling of the Aubry Wallace case and welcomed

an explanation of his reasoning in this matter.

We informed the Judge that our sources had confirmed that Mr.
Wallace was désirous of having his burglary conviction set aside
and dismissed so that he could apply to the Louisiana Pardon Board
as a first offender to receive a pardon for a narcotics conviction.
We advised the Judge that Wallace could only apply for a pardon as
a first offender on the narcotics case if his burglary conviction
was set aside. We told the Judge that Wallace needed his two
felony convictions (Burglary and Possession of in excess of 28 oz.
of cocaine) removed from his record so that he could apply for a
jicense to be a bail bondsman. The Judge admitted that he was
informed of Mr. Wallace’s plan by Robert Rees the attorney for
Wallace. ‘The Judge readily acknowledged that he was avare that
Wallace had been working for Bail Bonds Unlimited and Louis
Marcotte at the time he amended Wallace’s sentence. Purthermore,
the Judge stated that he suspected that Wallace’s employment with
Bail Bonds Unlimited was a violation of some type of state law,
but he felt it was the responsibility of the parole officer to deal
with that issue. The Judge stated that he was aware that Wallace
was recently arrested by the Parole Office for a parole violation

relative to-his employment with Bail Bonds Unlimited.

The Judge freely admitted that he has known Mr. Marcotte for
a number of years and considers him to be a friend. We asked the

Page 2 of 4

CONFIDENT AG 00595


1.

1667

over the years.

General Civil Practice - in private practice & City Attorney
Criminal Prosecution - Attomey General & District Attomey

b. Describe your typical former clients, and mention the areas, if any,
in which you specialized.

My clients were all individuals until approximately 1975. Subsequently, my
practice consisted of corporate representation in areas such as: maritime
defense for barge fleeting operations, NLRB appearances, and general
corporate representation. Additionally, from 1979 until 1984, I dealt with
corporations that developed and operated tank terminal facilities.

As City Attorney, I handled all matters involving the City of Harahan and
also prosecuted municipal violations in the Mayor’s Court

a. Did you appear in court regularly, occasionally or not at all? If the
frequency of your appearances in’ court varied, describe each such
variance, giving dates.

Regularly.
b. | What percentage of these appearances was in:
1) Federal courts. 20%
2) — State courts of record. 80%
3) Other courts. none
c. What percentage of your litigation was:
1) Civil. 50%
2) Criminal. 50%

d. State the number of cases you tried to verdict or judgment (rather than
- > settled) in courts of record, indicating whether you were sole counsel, |
chief counsel, or associate counsel.

350 plus - Sole Counsel, 80%; Chief Counsel, 15%; and. Associate
Counsel, 5%.

PoRTOOO000102


1589

retirement benefits. Reversed, finding statute was prospective only.

Cabral y. National Fire Ins.Co., 563 So $.2d 533, (La. App. 5 Cir 1990);

writ denied, 567 So.2d 1129. Reversed default judgment because insufficient
trial record made by plaintiff.

Succession of Austin, 527 So.2d 483, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1988). Foreign will
modified by the trial court to reduce the portion that impinged on the
legitime. Court of Appeals reversed finding that subsequent birth and
legitimation of children revoked the will.

Augustine v. Griffen, 525 So.2d 540, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1988); writ denied,
532 So.2d 118. Twelve-year old on bike hit by auto. I reduced award by
20% for comparative negligence of child. Court of Appeals changed
percentage of negligence on child to 80%.

First National Bank v. Verheugen, et al., 527 So.2d 453, (La. App. 5 Cir.

1988); writ denied 530 So.2d 576. Reversed in part on issue of attorney’s
fees.

, 525 So.2d 1103, (La. App. 5 Cir.1988); 531 So.2d
767, (LA 1989).. Plaintiff left a quadriplegic after an auto accident. Pacific
Employer Insurance Company failed to answer. Plaintiff obtained default
judgment. Court of Appeals upheld default judgment and. refusal of new
trial. Supreme Court reversed with 3 dissents, finding an incomplete record
was made by plaintiff when he confirmed the default.

Southern States Masonry, Inc. v. L.A. Jones Construction Co., et al., 507
So.2d 198, (LA 1987). Granted exception of prematurity. “Pay when paid”
clause of contract between contractor and subcontractor.

Cooper vy. Brownlow, 491 So.2d 693, (La. App. 5 Cir. 1986). Ruled Levee
District was immune from liability under provision of LSA-R.S. 9:2791 and

2795, on a summary judgment. Court of Appeals ruled question of material
facts in dispute which precluded summary judgment.

Administration of Tulane Education, 497 So.2d 27, (La. App. 5, 1986). Suit

on tuition. Directed verdict for defendant was reversed finding university’s

PoRTOOOO0024


1618

. Wass ot Partan haporting Data of Bepore
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT (cont'd)

Porteous (Jr.), Gabriel T. 8-29-94

\V. REIMBURSEMENTS and GIFTS - transportation, lodging, foes, entertainment
Cacho pte esctvel y spouse sad dopendolt Sen renpelavey. See pps of haus)
SOURCE ‘DESCRIPTION

[J ov nt te

See ER ee eT ee a eee a I SP es)

‘SOURCE DESCRIPTION YALWE

CI» NONE ss erent sein

apt.

ry
t
y
7

\ See ee

‘SREDITOR DESCRIPTION: ‘YALUE_CODE*

[x] sone cone sts

PoRTOO0000053


1663

the name of the moving party, the number of the case, the court, and
the grounds. Give the name and current address of any former
spouse(s).

No.

c. Names of your children, with age, address and present occupation of
each.

Nawie . Age Occupation

Michael Patrick Porteous “23 Student
4801 Neyrey Dr.
Metairie, LA 70002

Timothy Alexander Porteous 21 Student
(school address)

P.O. Box 25132

Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity

Baton Rouge, LA 70894

Thomas Anthony Porteous 19 Student
(school address)

1727 S. Brightside View, Apt. A

Baton Rouge, LA 70870

Catherine Anne Porteous 13 Student
4801 Neyrey Dr.
Metairie, LA 70002

Have you had any military service? If so, give dates, branch of service, rank
or rate, seria] number, present status, and type of discharge, if applicable.

No.

List each college and law school you attended, including dates of attendance,
the degrees awarded and, if you left any institution without receiving a
degree, the reason for leaving.

Louisiana State University (New Orleans) 1964-1968

PORTGOOG000S8


e .
BS te @ se aw ew nie

#

13
14
15
16
17
18
is
20
2.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

1806

reduced to simple burglary; is that
correct?
M3. LAMBERT?
Yes.
TUB COURT:
You're 29 and you have a high school
diploma. Is that correct, Mr. Wallace?
THE DEFENDANT: ~ .
Yes.
THR COURT:

Mr. Wallace, you're pleading guilty to
one count of simple burglary which
occurred on the eighth day of May 1989.
The maximum penalty I could impose on you
would be up to 12 years at hard labor. Do
you understand that?

THE DEPENDANT:

Y

cOURT:

Do you understand that the plea of
guilty is your decision and no one can
force you to so plead?

TAB DEFENDANT:
Yes.
THE COURT?
To plead guilty is your voluntary act
and must be free from any vice or defect
which would render your ability to plead

guilty inadequate. 4:

anyone used any
force, intimidation, coercion or
promise or reward againet either you or

any member of your family for the purpose

PORTO00000613



1601

Defense Counsel:
Jacob Amato, Jr.
901 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053
(504) 367-8181

r! ‘ermii y,
Civil Action # 247-364, 24th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana
Division "A ", Judge Louis G. DeSonier, Jr.

Trial on the summary judgment, December 18, 1980
Sole Counsel: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Capsule summary of case: Petition for mandamus seeking a building permit.
Complex litigation involving the rights of the parish government to deprive the
applicant of a permit to construct a terminal. The parish government had passed
a moratorium on the issuance of permits. The moratorium was challenged on the
basis of the parish’s failure to properly advertise the notice of the moratorium
legislation.

Final Disposition: Mandamus granted. Parish was ordered to issue a permit.

Opposing Counsel:

Alvin J. Dupre, Jr.

Suite A, 2701 Houma Blvd.
Metairie, LA

(504) 454-1061

R 7 ical, I
Civil Action # , 24th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana
Division "B", Judge Zaccaria
Citations: 363 So.2d 1263

10.

‘Trial on the summary judgment

Sole Counsel: G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. for Defendant

21

porTooo000036


1736

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 394-298 DIVISION “A”
KENNETH POCHE AND SCOTT KEY
VERSUS

BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION AND WAGNER MARINE, INC.

FILED:

DEPUTY CLERK
JUDGMENT

This matter came for hearing on the 28th day of May, and the 2nd and
‘3rd day of April, 1992 on a trial of the merits.

PRESENT:
ROBERT C. LEHMAN
Attorney for KENNETH POCHE and SCOTT KEY

FREDRICK H. DWYER
Attorney for BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION

ROY V. LADNER
Attorney for WAGNER MARINE, INC.

JAMES M, GARNER
Attorney for GLENS ‘FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Court, after hearing the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments
and memoranda of law furnished by counsel, considering the law and evidence
to be in favor of the plaintiffs and against Bayliner Marine Corporation for the

written reasons attached hereto:

IT 1S ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the sale of the Bayliner
Trophy Convertible 2560 boat is immediately rescinded, and that Bayliner
Marine refund to petitioners, Kenneth Poche and Scott Key, the full puirchase
price of FORTY-SIX THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY-NINE and 9 1/100

{$46,799.91} DOLLARS, plus judicial interest from date of purchase.

PORTOO0000171


‘TP IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be
expert fees assessed against the defendants, Steven Douglas and
Government Enployees Insurance Company, in the amount of TWO HUNDRED

FIFTY AND NO/100 ($250.00) DOLLARS per expert.
JUDGMENT READ, RENDERED AND SIGNED this

July, 1985, at Gretna, Louisiana.

{208
PORTOO0000136

242,00


10.

iL.

12.

13.

14.

1585

Other Memberships: List all organizations to which you belong that are
active in lobbying before public bodies. Please list all other organizations

to which you belong.
None.

Court Admission: List all courts in which you have been admitted to
practice, with dates of admission and lapses if any such membership lapsed.
please explain the reason for any lapse of member ship. Give the same
information for administrative bodies which require special admission to
practice.

All State Courts of Louisiana * September 7, 1971
United States District Court, September 19, 1972
Eastern District of Louisiana

United States Supreme Court April 18, 1977
United States Court of Appeals, Sth Circuit October 1, 1981

Published Writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles,
reports, or other published material you have written or edited. Please
supply one copy of all published material not readily available to. the
Committee. Also, please supply a copy of all speeches by you on issues
involving constitutional law or legal policy. If there were press reports about
the speech, and they are readily available to you please supply them.

See Attachment "A".

Health: What is the present state of your health? List the date of your last
physical examination.

Excellent - May, 1990.

Iudicial Office: State (chronologically) any judicial offices you have held,
whether such position was elected or appointed, and a description of the
jurisdiction of each such court.

PORTOOO000020


1863

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(m), to

seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property.

Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963.

New Orleans, Louisiana
March 3, 2004

rn
st Assistant United States Attomey
‘hief, Criminal Division
Louisiana Bar Roll No. 9020

SALVADOR R. OCU

Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Strike Force
Louisiana Bar Roll No, 15

Assistant United States Attorney
Louisiana Bar Roll No. }2299

Wen, PAW

WILLIAM P. GIBBENS
Assistant United States Attomey
Louisiana Bar Roll No. 27225

PLOW

MICHAEL W. MAGNER |
Assistant United States Attomey
Chief, Violent Crimes Unit
Louisiana Bar Roll No. 1206

19 a


1629

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. Standing Committee on
Federal judiciary
2800 M Street MW
Washington, 9 2036
a Bz

CONFIDENTIAL August 30, 1994

Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
2ath Judicial District court
Division "A"

Gretna Courthouse Annex Bldg.
Second Floor, Room 200

Gretna, LA 70053

Dear Judge Porteous:

Congratulations on your nomination for appointment
as Judge of the United states District court, Eastern
District of Louisiana. .

At the invitation of the United States senate
Committee on the Judiciary, we have today sent a letter
to them reporting on our evaluation of your
qualifications. A copy of this letter is enclosed for
your information.

Sincerely,

fi
William BE, Willis
chair

(Enclosure)

cons oe 8
smcnes thet cc: All ABA Judiciary Committee Members
lsmcT OF Cowman Hon. Bleanor Dean Acheson

PORTODODoOO64


1785

have demonstrated to the jury that the defendant had no
significant prior history of criminal activity in accordance
with C.Cr.P. art. 905.5(a).

In Tyler v. Kemp, 755 F.2d 741(1985}, at p. 745, the
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit held, "the
evolution of the nature of the penalty phase of a capital
trial indicates the importance of the jury receiving
adequate and accurate information regarding the defendant.
Without that information, a jury cannot make the life/death
decision in a rational and individualized manner." The
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit in Thomas

Kemp, 796 F.2d 1322 (1986), at p. 1325, held “the key

aspect of the penalty trial is that the sentence be
individualized, focusing on the particularized
characteristics of the individual."

The jury in the instant case was not able to make the
Life/death decision in a rational manner. The jury was
given scant information in the penalty phase concerning Lane
Nelson. Here, as in Tyler v. Kemp, 755 F.2d 741(1985), at
Pp. 745, the death penalty which resulted in the instant case
was robbed of the reliability essential to assure confidence
in that decision.

‘This Court concludes that defendant has satisfied the
prejudice prong of the Strickland standard. Defense
counsels" failure to investigate and present, sufficient
mitigating evidence fell below an objective standard of |
reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.

Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.

ve

Lane Nelson has established that the errors of his

defense counsel wexe prejudicial to his defense. “there is
a sufficient probability that effective counsel could have
convinced a sentencer that the death sentence should not be
given to undermine confidence in the outcome." King v.
Strickland, 748 F.2d 1462 (1984), at p.1464~1465.

Here, as in Jones v. Thigpen, 788 P.24 1101 (1986), at

P+ 1103, defense counsel either neglected or ignored
~ 26 -

PORTOG0000220


1698

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Art. ‘1916(2), when a jury returns
a special verdict, the judge must sign a judgment in accordance therewith,
tharefore, in conformance with the verdict of the jury herein,

TT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the verdict of the jury be
and it is hereby made tha judgment of this court. .

‘IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECRRED that the expert fees in

this matter are hereby set at TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 ($250.00) DOLLARS
per expert witness.

‘IT IS FURTHER ORDERD, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the expert fees and cost
of these proceedings are to be divided between plaintiffs and defendant in
proportion with the degree of fault attributed to the respective parties.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Art. 1812(D) when a jury
returns @ judgment pursuant to a special verdict, the court shall then enter
judgment in conformity with the jury's answers to these special questions

and according to applicable lav.
The court finds the applicable law in the instant matter concerning

the dollar figure due in a comparative fault situation is Bell v. Jet Mh
Blast, (La- 1985) 462 So. 2¢ 166. There the court stated that the adoption

of a system.of comparative fault should entail the merger of assumption of
risk into the general scheme of assessment of liability in proportion to fault.
A plaintiff's claim for damages is no longer barred because of assumption

of the risk. The net effect of article 2323, as anended, is to prevent the
courts from applying any defense more injurious to a damage claim than
comparative negligence. Presumably, the doctrine of last clear chance, like
that of assumption of the risk is also merged into the general scheme of
comparative negligence under the rational of Bell, supra.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recovery is reduced in proportion to the
fault attributed to the decedent, Stanton J. Stark.

In detecmining what dollar figure to place on the jury's special
verdict, the court must reduce the damage avard by TEN THOUSAND AND NO/100
($10,000.00) DOLLARS which is the amount State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, as the insurer of Stephen Douglas, has already paid to
plaintiffs. The fact of payment has been stipulated by all parties, sud GEICO,

as UM carrier, is entitled to 4 credit for monies paid by the primary liability

coverage.

PORTOO0000133


17.

19.

21.

1682

Are you now an officer or director or otherwise engaged in-the management
of any business enterprise?

No.
a. If so, give details, including the name of the enterprise, the nature of

the business, the title or other description of your position, the nature
of your duties and the term of your service.

Not applicable.
b. Is it your intention to resign such positions and withdraw from any

participation in the management of any of such enterprises if you are
nominated and confirmed. If not, give reasons.

Not applicable.
Have you ever been arrested, charged, or held by federal, state, or other
law enforcement authorities for violation of any federal law or regulation,

county or municipal law, regulation or ordinance? If so, give details. Do not
include traffic violations for which a fine of $100.00 or less was imposed.

No.

Have you, to your knowledge, ever been under federal, state or local
investigation for possible violation of a criminal statute? If so, give

particulars.
No.

Has a tax lien or other collection procedure ever been instituted against you
by federal, state or local authorities? If so, give particulars.

No.

a, Have you ever been sued by a client or a party? If so, give
particulars.

21

PORTOOG000117


1828

C.CrP. Art. 894 _ CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE . . oe. 56
pended y the sous atborurd by is Arce, end to bell he. dead sje w he probuton tt
the court finds at the conclusion of the period of”  “therities for a long period, suchas may be necessary
suspension that the defendant has not been convicted {a Eelony cases,

Sat Seen semen ra rer ee

agaist him, the cour may set the convicion ssid and
‘The: of the

that the conviction may be considered as font offense

an proie t arSbegoen protn of ee owes o suspend. Cot, Brown 212 Le
arty as 2 muhiple offender. Discharge and dismissal $55 2 £04 776 1947), Ste v Totaaon, 220 La
‘under this provision may occur only once with respect , 55 So.2d 782 (1951):
to any person during a five-year period. Fea dsl snes pao f te
Not — suspended sentence 1s 0 enable a trial judge to
cEi--Nomhing contained here shall be copstrued as. TATE the ceatence vo the eiences of tho case at
being @ basis for destruction of records of the arrest SE Foc couple h be a
quently may be advisable
ere eee or yee person convicted of a misde- ‘to release a defendant for a short time because of
meagot, Amended by Acs 1972 "No."S14, $l; Acts some ilness or other emergeacy situation, Also, H
1972; Ne 651, § 1; Acts 1975, No. 608, § 1: Acts 1978, ~--~—Bay be good policy 10 ions taace of «fe
No, No 3570 $3 Aczs 1982, No. 270, § 1; Acts 1986, No. and imprisonment, but to suspend the imprisonment
TS STATE IIT “Aes 1989, No. 35, -—~—pancoftbe-senteate::—- = =~
$ 1; Aess 1980, No. 89, #1. (©) Criminal neglect ‘of family is 1 misdemeanor
for which k is generally advisable to place the of-
Ofickel Revision Comment fender on probation with careful supervision by the
(2) This anicle provides for unsupervised suspen: Welfare Department staff wo aake sure that the
sion of sentence in mest misdemeanor cases, and te defendant lives up to his family obtgations. The
‘oaly condition imposed is good behavior. which Is ‘substantive elenienes of the crime. and some ‘inciden-
Gefined to mean that the defendant must not be tn procedya spect, are compebeesively treated
Convced of anyother offense dung the period of in the much amended Ans. 74 and 75 of the Crimi
the suspended sentence. Accor: former R. tal Coue (LS 107% tnd 1415, Spec probaon
{Sus unended by Ac 30 of 160 Ts Say, provisions in the Criminal Procedure title of the
Gordon, 214 La. B22. 38 So.2d 794 (1949), the court Revised Stanutes (former RS, 15:3%6.1), ere rerained
Jnterpreted the “any other crime” to Include jn Tite 15 of the Revised Starutes. Combination
conviction of a offense. Stresting the policy and farther revision did not prove feasible.
cs tis, to ald the
rehabilcadon of the penltest offeader who abstains ioctl and Seatstoy Notes
from further erime, the court held that the condicion Seorce
cof the ruspended sentence would be broken by any Former RS. 15536 Acs 1966, No, 310. §
conviction whether loca, federal, or foreign.

Regardless of the term-of the sentence impoted, = Art. 894.1. Sentencing guidelines
Toye ane apettr seus a pood bebevor ‘A. When the.defendent has been convicted of &

for one year unless the cour specifies a shorter felony, be ema shal one, te eening guide-
period, _ d by the Louisiana Sentencing Com-
mace the approptiate sefitence to be
imposed. However, no sentence shall be declared
‘unlawful, inadequate, or excessive solely due to the
of the court to impose a sentence in conformity

sentencing guidelines Of Woe Comission,

B. A court may impose a sentence, which includes
incarceration or other significant sanctions, which is
under the sentencing guidelines notwith-

a
t

of sentence. Both standing any limitation on-probation or suspension of

§ 7.01, Proposed Official Draft (1962) and 18 ‘sentence under the provisions of Article 893.
Reece eerie sod spent C. The court shall sta for the record the consider-
pdeerra sory ations taken into account, inciudiog any aggravating
: . and mitigating circumstances which may be. present,
LO etc rt a ee acer msl eee

‘not exeed ‘It may be desirable Added by Acts I!
Boll the sefendasr robject to's sejpended semneace 7p No.4 § (xs 1987, No. 500, § 1; Acct 1991,
‘31, 1992 7

PoRTooo000677


1849

3. Itwasa furtherpart of the conspiracy that, in return for things of value, certain judges
would make themselves available to BBU; quickly respond to the requests of BBU; and set, reduce,
increase, and split bonds to maximize BBU’s profits, minimize BBU’s liability, and hinder BBU’s
competition.

It was a further part of the conspiracy that, to allow BBU to maximize its profits, the

4.
conspirator judges would engagein the practice of “bond splitting.” Bond splitting would commonly
occur when a defendant could not afford to pay the bond that had originally been set. When this
happened, BBU would ask one of the conspirator judges to “split” the total bond into a commercial
portion and a non-commercial portion. At BBU’s request, the conspirator judge would set the
commercial portion of the bond at an amount the defendant could afford and would set the balance
in some other manner. BBU would then post the commercial portion of the bond and-collect a
percentage of that bond as commission. This practice allowed BBU to maximize its profit and
minimize its liability.

5. Itwas a further part of the conspiracy that, in return for things of value, certain JPSO
Deputies gave BBU preferential treatment at the Jefferson Parish jail to maximize BBU’s profits and
hinder its competition.

6. Tt was a further part of the conspiracy that the defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE,
TH, defrauded Amwest by using the mails and private interstate carriers to fraudulently obtain funds
from the BUF account, which was to be used to reimburse Amwest for any bond forfeitures it paid
‘on behalf of BBU relative to criminal defendants who failed to appear in court.

7. It was a further part of the conspiracy that the defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE,
UH, and others known and unknown to the United States Attorney, directly and indirectly, concealed

and hid the purposes of and acts done in furtherance of the racketeering conspiracy.

we


1684

: et nisi
#405-429, 24th Judicial District Court

Constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 13:994(B)(1),(@2),(3). This concerned a
Louisiana statute which assessed a 2% fee on bail bonds. All judges were
sued as nominal parties in their official capacity.

Pending.

t al ti isi vi
#90-4667 U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 13:994(B)(1),(2),3). This concerned a
Louisiana statute which assessed a 2% fee on bail bonds. All judges were
sued as nominal parties in their official capacity. This is virtually the same
claim as Sierra, et al v. Sti Louisiana, Governot mer, et al except
it was filed in Federal court.

Injunction granted.

De Grange, et al v. 24th Judicial District Court
# 89-3535, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

All judges were sued in their official and individual capacity. Petitioners,
Shurmaine De Grange and Ida Williams alleged discrimination. Both
petitioners were former employees of the late Judge Lionel Collins. After
his death, De Grange, his former law clerk, alleged she was not hired as a
hearing officer in Domestic Court because of discrimination. Ida Williams,
his former secretary, alleged discrimination because her services were not
retained by the newly elected judge of the division.

Resolution: The matter was settled without any admission of liability or
responsibility.

“Grand Jury: T only -appeared-on one“ occasion: “In-approximately 197951
appeared before a Federal Grand Jury as a witness. No indictment was
returned. I believe the party being investigated was my client, Richard
White. Those are the only particulars I can recall and I cannot locate any
documentation on this matter.

23

PORTOO0000119


1847

and/or LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III. Amwest was placed in liquidation by the State of Nebraska

onorabout June 7, 2001. Amwest’s successor in interest, Far West Insurance Company, was placed

in liquidation by the State of Nebraska on or about November 9, 2001

B. he Conspirators

1. Judge Ronald D. Bodenheimer (hereinafter “Bodenheimer”) was a public officer,
namely af elected district judge of the 24" Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State
of Louisiana (hereinafter "24" JDC”),

2. Lieutenant Guy Maynard Crosby (hereinafter “Crosby”) was a public officer, namely
a Lieutenant with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office (hereinafter “JPSO”) and was in charge of the
‘Warrants and Attachments Section of the JPSO with the responsibility of locating and apprehending

fugitives.
3. Bail Bondsman #1 was a Gretna, Louisiana bail bondsman and the Chief Financial
Officer of BBU,
4. Bail Bondsman #2 was a Gretna, Louisiana bail bondsman and an employee of BBU.
Judge A was 2 public officer, namely an elected district judge of the 24" JDC.
Deputy #1 was a public officer, namely a JPSO Deputy and jailer.
Deputy #2 was a public officer, namely a JPSO Deputy and jailer.

zs aw

Deputy #3 was a public officer, namely a JPSO Deputy and jailer.
c the Racketeering Enterpris

LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III, BBU, and others known to the United States Attorney
comprised an enterprise as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that ‘is, a group
of individuals and entities associated in fact, which was engaged in, and the activities of which
affected, interstate commerce. The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization’ whose members *

functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise

w&


a

10
1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
224

22

26
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

THE

MR.

THE

1816

t PROCEEDING iy
cou

All right. This is State of Louisiana

versus Aubrey Wallace. It was 89-2360. It's a
motion for amended sentence. Mr. Netterville
is standing in on behalf of Mr. Reese. I’ve
already spoken with the DA on this.
Apparently, previously in my Court on 11
December 91, T terminated thio defendant’ s
probation unsatisfactorily because as stated in
the petition, "Subject was sentenced on
2/26/91, on 89-0001, to five years at hard
labor for possession of PCP and Cocaine." That
conviction or that crime. technically predates
the crime for which he pled in my particular
Court. Accordingly, it was an incorrect basis
to terminate unsatisfactorily. Accordingly,
the sentence will be amended to include removal
of-the unsatisfactory removal of probation and
the entering of the plea under Code of Criminal
Procedure 893.

All right, I've signed the order
NETTERVILLE:

Thank you, Judge.
court:

If you want further relief, then file a
petition to, enforce 893 and then 1/11 execute

that also.

. NETTERVILLE:

Thank you.

PoRToo0000623


1572

eaves see . Goro
et 3
: 4
Uso ppl oto yu wel nd ree Unto Ste,
Deniet spouse, oer reatves, or fer spouses. Try not to Het anyone mectonad fa tam 9,10, oF.
—= PRtomner Woes Race
Bon C. Gatdner : 23 (Soe 7372651
“Feertainw (504) 737-2273 OFF Ice ey eaT te
40 Imperial Woods Dr. 6380 Jefferson Hwy. Harahan
io) Marcin F Orem.
wearbetsaa jack a0Us Office II vine hy Bee BY z
2: ere Dr. " enn

st eny activites which you may wish to have conskdred as relecting favarably on your reputation for leaderstip, responsibly, honesty,
‘Opilonal)

resident, Fourth & Fifth Circuit Judges Assoc. Greene

thief Judge, Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court | Gretna

‘a, 0 you have any foreign propery, business connections, oF fnancal nares?

tb. “Ave yau now o have you ever boon employed by ot adod ar @ Tor 8 a a, or agen fad,
¢. We the lan 18 your, have you had ‘contac wih a raional oT any foreign country dealgnated by te agency >

sone
(Garactng you to i cut is ce (NOTE: H the agency wants you to answer thls question, twit pravide you with {,.
alist of counirten)

yore SB, ore SPR We Spans BAHT
ave
LUst orsign counrtes you have vieted, beginning withthe most current (81) and workng backward 15 years
“Deo not inckide couiios coveced in Rams 6, 10, and {1.
+ in he “Code” block, use one al these codes: 1 - Business 3 Education 4 othoe
reoa ~Sney =
2. |Bahana:

| Bahanas.
<4 | Eealy, France, Spaia, fF
122} 2 | Greece, Sicily
16 YOUR MIUTARY HISTORY
‘a, Have you gorvad fn the United States milan’? «52+. +eee ee
eve you served. the Ucted Sites Marchant Marina?
+ it yor answer to Both questions fs "No," GO TO QUESTION 17.
+l your answor to sttge question ts “Yes GO TO be
‘Bo Bearing wih the most care (FT) and working backwar, solar Wlervaion Tor a padode a] save Banca Bio We Ble Ba
* Mate °O” block foc Officer oF" bock fr Esto.

No
x
2

Enter your Social Securly Number before golng to the next page ST una
PORTOODOOOSBRE 5


1661

7

We find that interpretation of the legislative intent to be
consistent with the changes made in the 1989 amenduents to LSA-
R.S. 372218 and LEA-R.S. 9:5001. Thus, we find the trial court’s
judgment should be amended to award Kr. Cerullo reimbursement of
advances made by him in furtherance of Ms. Watts litigation. He
do not find, nor has Mr. Cerullo suggested, jurisprudential
eupport for an avard of funds secured but not paid to medical
providers,

For the foregoing reasons the judguent of the trial court te
amended to award Mr. Cerullo the sum of $1244.00 for
reimbursement of funds advanced. Mr. Hand’s award is decreased
by $1,244.00. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AMENDED AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED

PORTO00000096


1606

Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside
employment, with or without compensation, during your service with the
court? If so, explain.

No.

List sources and amounts of all income received during the calendar year
preceding your nomination and for the current calendar year, including ail
salaries, fees, dividends, interest, gifts, rents, royalties, patents, honoraria,
and other items exceeding $500 or more (If you prefer to do so, copies of
the financial disclosure report, required by the Ethics in Government Act of
1978, may be substituted here.)

See Attachment “C"

Please complete the attached financial net worth statement in detail (Add
schedules as called for).

See Attachment “D"

Have you ever held a position or played a role in a political campaign? If
so, please identify the particulars of the campaign, including the candidate,
dates of the campaign, your title and responsibilities.

Only the campaign wherein I was elected District Court Judge.

I. GENERAL (PUBLIC)

An ethical consideration under Cannon 2 of the American Bar Association’s
Code of Professional Responsibility calls for “every lawyer, regardless of
professional prominence or professional workload, to find some time to
participate in serving the disadvantaged." Describe what you have done to
fulfill these responsibilities, listing specific instances and the amount of time
devoted to each.

Speaker - Continuing Legal Education. I appear as a speaker for numerous

26

PoRTOGOO00041


1726

experience, is such that he should reasonably anticipate careless or criminal conduct

‘on the part of the third persons, either generally or at some particular time, he may
be under a duty to take precautions against it...”

Hence, itis not required that the defendants be aware of the specific impending
criminal conduct or be aware that a particular individual would endanger @ patron. It
is sufficient that the defendants were, or should have been, aware of a pattern of
conduct which made the particular injury-causing criminal conduct foreseeable.

in the instant case, Phoung Ngo and Hien Dinh took all reasonable steps to
guard against foreseeable assault on their patrons.

The Court is of the opinion that the defendants did not breach their duty of care
to plaintiff when they permitted the security guards to leave. The owners had no
reason to anticipate that any harm would come to the persons remaining on the

premises. Under the facts of the case, there was nothing that occurred prior to or

immediately proceeding this incident which made this particular injury-causing criminal

conduct foreseeable.

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the suit of plaintiff, Thuan Ngoc Do. Al

panties to bear their respective cost.
signen tis_7 eZ, 1 bled. 1992. Gretna, Louisiana.

PORTGO0000161



1693

“O73 uT7TVISTE
‘24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 286-253 DIvESION “a"
DAVID EGUDIN
vs.
CARRIAGE COURT CONDOMINTUMS, ET AL
FILED: » 1987 DEPUTY CLERK:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ay specific performaice

This ancter cones before che court on a peciti
and damages. The evidence at erial revealed that pecitioner paid che purchase
price for condoginium unit 202 of the Carriage Court Condoninivas, on Karch 5,
1982, prior to the closing of the sale of the condomtaiua unit.

Carriage Court Condoniniums is a partnership in comendan, Behrvil Group
is che general partner, Villere, che developer of Carriage Court Condominiums,
As the sole shareholder and president of Behrvil Group. The majority of
petitioner's personal dealings were through Ana Zehentner and to a lesser
extent, Bobbie Henderson: These defendants worked as real estate agents for
Vilaark Brokars, coordinating sales, on site for Carriage Court Condomiatuas.
Henderson and Zehentner vere under che direct supervision of Villere, Tha
initial encering of che agreenent Co purchase and the paynent of the purchase
price of FORTY-SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN AND 64/100 ($46,297.44)
DOLLARS in full prior to closing vas negotiated with Zehentner and her sponsoring
broker, Handerson. ,

Plaintiff hee never: received title to tke satd unit from Carriage Court
Condoniniues. Title could noe be conveyed bacause of moregages with Audubon
Federal. Andubon Federal subsequently foreclosed on Carriage Court Condouiniuns.
1 Home toan

Audubon Federal thereafter vas placed in receivership by che Fedei
Bank Board. The FSLIC te naned as receiver.

Te vas stipulated ct erial that plaintiff is entitled to specific performance
‘There is also a stipulation by Mike Hill of PSLIC chat plaintiff could obtain
release of this unit by paywent of THIRIY-TEREE THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($33,000.00)
DOLLARS.

Te was revealed at erial chat plaintiff's present predicanene was brought
shout by an intertwining veb of fraud, aishandling, inapticude and inexperience.

The court found plainciff, David Egudia, vho vas of foreign origin, was
unfamiliar with real estate transactions. and totally reliant on the

entations of Zeheatner and Henderson.

- sag B® porrdtobtdize

rept



1850

F. Overt Acts

L In furtherance of the said RICO conspiracy, and to accomplish the objects thereof,
the defendant, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, ITI, and others known and unknown to the United States

Attorney, committed and caused others to commit the following Overt Acts, among others, in the

Easter District of Louisiana, and elsewhere:
2, ‘orruption of Juc nald D. Bodenheimer

a Beginning at a date unknown and continuing until in or about June 2002,

LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III provided Bodenheimer with gifts, meals, and other things of value.
Inretum, Bodenheimer was available to BBU; quickly responded to the requests of BBU; and set,

reduced, increased, and split bondsto maximize BBU’s profits, minimize BBU’s liability, and hinder

BBU’s competition.
b. In or about July 1999, BBU paid for a hotel room and show tickets for

Bodenheimer and his wife at a casino in Biloxi, Mississippi.

¢. Inor about March 2000, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, IU hired Bodenheimer’s

daughter to work at BBU. In the Fall of 2001, at Bodenheimer’s request, BBU began to pay for

Bodenheimer’s daughter's health insurance.
d. Inor.about April 2000, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, III hired Bodenheimer’s

stepson to work at BBU.

e. - Inorabout June 2000, at a conference in Destin, Florida, a BBU employee
chartered a boat trip for Bodenheimer, several other judges, and their families. During the same
conference, LOUIS M. MARCOTTE, iI hosted a party for Bodenheimer and several other judges.

f. nor about 2000 and 2001, a relative of Bail Bondsman #1 provided free labor

for repairs and renovations of Bodenheimer’s home.

g In October 2000, at BBU's request, Bodenheimer set a $25,000.00 bond for

a defendant who had been arrested as a fugitive.


1668

e. What percentage of these trials was:
jury. 40%
2) ~~ ‘Non-jury. 60%

f. Describe ten of the most significant litigated matters which you
personally handled and give the citations, if the cases were reported.
Give a capsule summary of the substance of each case, and a succinct
statement of what you believe to be the particular significance of the
case. Identify the party or parties whom you represented; describe in
detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the final
disposition of the case. Also state as to each case a) the dates of the
trial period or periods, b) the name of the court and the name of the
judge before whom the case was tried, and c) the individual name,
address and telephone numbers of co-counsel and of counsel for each
of the other parties.

1 Tellepsen Construction Co, et al v. M/S SANTISTA, et al
Civil Action #75-2249, U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist. of Louisiana
Section "C", Honorable Alvin Rubin

This matter was tried for the most part; a settlement was reached during trial and
an agreement to dismiss was filed prior to rendition of judgment, August 9, 1976.

Capsule summary of case: Ship collision. The dock was constructed by my clients,
Tellepsen Construction Company and Lagradeur International. This case was
noteworthy because it was major litigation involving issues of negligence, and
limitation and remoteness of damage claims.

Final Disposition: Settled to my clients’ satisfaction.

G, Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Counsel for Tellepsen Construction Co. & Lagradeur International

(Sole Counsel)

Opposing Counsel: .
Terriberry, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell

Walter Carroll, Jr.(retired)

3100 Energy Centre

1100 Poydras St.

. PORTOO0000103


1609

Some of the characteristics of this “judicial activism" have been said to
include:

a. A tendency by the judiciary toward problem-solution rather than
grievance-resolution;

b. A tendency by the judiciary to employ the individual plaintiff as a”
vehicle for the imposition of far-reaching orders extending to broad
classes of individuais;

c. A tendency by the judiciary to impose broad, affirmative duties upon
governments and society;

d. A tendency by the judiciary toward loosening jurisdictional
Tequirements such as standing and ripeness; and

e. A tendency by the judiciary to impose itself upon other institutions in
the manner of an administrator with continuing oversight
responsibilities.

Our country, with its three separate and distinct branches of
government, has withstood the test of time and the criticism of some. Even
though the branches are separate, there will always be occasions when there
is interaction among them while still preserving the separation of powers.

We, in the judiciary, have a duty to listen to the facts of a case and
render a decision according to law pertinent to those issues. The
presentation of the facts are for the litigants and we should always guard
against participating in that presentation. A trier of fact should in no way
devise, invent or concoct facts; it should rule on the case before it. Unless
a question is certified before the court by the Louisiana Supreme Court or
any other tribunal properly, it may not render an advisory opinion. Novel
questions of law ocCasionally arise, and they must be dealt with according
to the facts before the court. The judiciary must decide cases according to
the facts and law as.an impartial arbitrator.

In performing our duties there are occasions when our judgments may
29

PORTOO0000044