Agreeing with the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, which was based on a stipulation, the Louisiana Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for engaging in improper ex parte communications with the district attorney’s office about unsealing the transcripts of hearings about the defendant’s indigency and granting the state’s motion to unseal without holding a hearing or giving defense counsel the opportunity to respond. In re Canaday (Louisiana Supreme Court October 20, 2023).
In a high-profile second-degree murder case, the judge presided over multiple hearings about the defendant’s indigency and his request for ancillary funding for expert witnesses. Because defense strategy would be disclosed during the hearings, the district attorney was not present, and the transcripts were sealed.
The judge found that the defendant was not indigent and denied his request for funding. The defense challenged the indigency ruling in a writ application to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. To facilitate the application, the judge granted defense counsel’s request for transcripts of the hearings. When defense counsel moved to obtain a missing transcript, the judge ordered that the transcript be given to defense counsel and handwrote that it be “release[d] from seal.”
In an email to the judge that did not copy defense counsel, the district attorney’s office asked whether the judge’s order gave it access to the transcripts as well as defense counsel and the appellate court. When Amber Thibodeaux with the district attorney’s office followed up by text, the judge replied: “Since I don’t believe the state could appeal my granting relief to the defense on funding, I don’t think they can support the courts [sic] position to deny. The courts [sic] reasons will be sufficient for the 3rd to review. If the 3rd requests a states [sic] response obviously they could access the record.” Thibodeaux responded: “Thank you for getting back with me. Enjoy your trip & safe travels! We’ll see you on the 9th.” Defense counsel was not included in these communications.
After the court of appeal reversed the judge’s indigency ruling, Thibodeaux emailed him a copy of the ruling. The judge replied: “If the state wants to take up to the Supreme Court, I will unseal the record. GMC.” Defense counsel was not copied on this email.
The district attorney’s office then filed a motion to unseal all the documents and transcripts related to the determination of the defendant’s indigency, and the judge granted the motion without a hearing and without giving defense counsel an opportunity to respond. The materials released by the judge included a transcript of a closed hearing in which defense strategy was discussed, including experts and their expected testimony.
After that ruling, defense counsel argued successfully that the judge should be recused from the case; the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied requests to reverse the recusal. Both the state and defense counsel expended significant time, effort, and funds on the recusal and review proceedings. Negative media reports about the judge’s actions prompted the Commission investigation.
According to the judge, it was not unusual for Thibodeaux to contact him or his secretary regarding scheduling or issues with the daily docket. He stated that he “did not intend” his communication with Thibodeaux about unsealing the record “to be a definitive response as to what my action would be,” but only to suggest that the district attorney “send me a motion.” However, he acknowledged his language was inappropriate and had suggested that he would grant a motion to unseal. The judge further admitted that he “may have had some ego involved” and “a ‘knee-jerk reaction” to the Third Circuit deeming his indigency ruling incorrect. He wanted the issue before the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The judge also admitted that he did not carefully review the state’s motion before unsealing the transcripts, explaining that the motion was in a stack of hundreds of discovery-type motions presented when he was without a magistrate and was duty judge. He admitted “just signing things, and I’m not even reading them . . . .” While the judge said he got “kind of caught up in a perfect storm,” he also acknowledged that he had “created the situation,” “made legal error,” and “took away from the esteem of the judiciary.” He agreed that his eventual recusal was proper and confessed that if he was defense counsel, “I would have felt the same way.”
In aggravation, the Court stated that the judge’s “actions harmed the integrity of and respect for the judiciary. His ex parte communications gave the impression he granted special access and advantages to prosecutors regularly appearing in his court,” which was reinforced when he failed to thoroughly review the motion to unseal and summarily granted it without the required hearing and without providing defense counsel the opportunity to object. The Court concluded that “upon media reporting on Judge Canaday’s actions, public trust in and respect for the judiciary eroded.”
In mitigation, the Court emphasized that the judge “has consistently acknowledged and apologized for his misconduct and its impact on the judiciary.” The judge described the measures he had taken to prevent repeating his misconduct; he now requires that all communications go through his legal assistant and that any email include opposing counsel, he refuses to accept text messages and he reviews all motions before determining whether a contradictory hearing is required. The judge testified that he is “much more cautious now in what I sign.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.