Opinion ID: 1920622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Custom

Text: Although the Commission found that Judge Elloie's reliance on the custom of not conducting contradictory hearings on expungement motions acted as a mitigating factor, we find that this cannot be so. The defense that a long-standing procedure was utilized cannot prevail when that procedure is in direct contravention to express written statutory law, about which there can be no misunderstanding or confusion. Judge Elloie testified at the Commission hearing that no contradictory hearings with the district attorney were held on expungement motions in Orleans or Jefferson Parishes when he practiced criminal law, prior to his election to the bench. He also stated that he knew of no contradictory hearings being held on expungement motions in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. Later in his testimony, however, he conceded that several judges complied with the mandatory procedures of La. R.S. 44:9. [28] Rather than reflecting a long-standing custom, the failure to hold contradictory hearings on expungement motions in the past which served as a basis for Judge Elloie's characterization of a custom may have reflected the state of the law at that earlier time. Although La. R.S. 44:9 was enacted in 1970, the statute initially applied only to the expungement of misdemeanor arrest records. [29] The statute did not include the expungement of felony arrest records until 1981. At that time, a defendant could file a motion for expungement if the district attorney joined in the motion. [30] No contradictory hearing was necessary because the district attorney had to join in the motion to expunge. Subsequent amendments removed the requirement of joinder with the district attorney but required contradictory hearings with the arresting law enforcement agency prior to expungement. [31] Not until a 1995 amendment did La. R.S. 44:9 require a contradictory hearing with the district attorney and the arresting law enforcement agency prior to the expungement of felony arrest and conviction records. [32] Thus, the requirement for a contradictory hearing with the district attorney did not become effective until August 15, 1995. Judge Elloie took the bench a year and a half later. After the 1985 amendment, any judge who failed to conduct contradictory hearings with the affected agency prior to expungement of felony arrest or conviction records did so in violation of La. R.S. 44:9. Judge Elloie, when he assumed the bench in 1997, was not following long-established custom in failing to hold the mandated contradictory hearings, but rather he (and any other judges at Orleans Parish Criminal District Court who followed this custom) failed in their duty to be informed of the applicable law. Thus, Judge Elloie's defense that he was following the custom of the court fails completely and cannot serve as a mitigating factor.