Three weeks after his federal conviction on conspiracy and obstruction charges, longtime Lafayette prosecutor Gary Haynes has filed a Motion for a new trial.
The document, which he filed on Thursday, is embedded below if you want to read it for yourself. It was filed by his defense team, led by Todd Clemons of Lake Charles.
On September 18, Haynes was convicted of conspiracy to engage in bribery; bribery; two counts use of a cell phone to facilitate bribery; conspiracy to commit money laundering; and obstruction of justice. He now faces up to 60 years in prison and fines of up to $1.5 million or more. Three co-defendants pleaded guilty in the case and cooperated with the prosecution; one has been sentenced to four years in prison. A fifth alleged co-defendant, former Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Jack Montoucet, has a 2026 trial date.
The Motion requests a new trial based on improper exclusion of evidence, improper admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and statements and judicial bias and animus. Haynes' attorneys also argue that the jury's verdict wasn't proper, considering the evidence.
The Motion argues that the court should have allowed the jury to hear audio recordings that defense attorneys say were favorable to their client; to hear evidence about co-defendant Leonard Franques' wife's corrections to her FBI statements; to hear about District Attorney Don Landry's inconsistent statements; and to hear recordings that "directly contradicted" evidence the government introducted.
We did a story about some of the recordings that were excluded; to read that story click here.
On the other hand, the Motion argues that the court should not have allowed the jury to hear evidence about the Wildlife and Fisheries conspiracy; evidence of payments from a co-defendant; evidence about the federal bribery case that sent Haynes' wife to federal prison in 2015; evidence about Haynes' trips to Colombia and Panama; and evidence about Haynes' ethics training requirements.
Regarding prosecutorial misconduct, the Motion argues that the government failed to "timely disclose" Michelle Franques' corrections to her FBI statement; the government got that document back in April but didn't send it to the defense until about a week prior to trial. After she said she would plead the Fifth, she wasn't called as a witness, and a prosecutor argued in front of the jury that defense attorneys had commented on that decision - "erroneously," the Motion argues, because there had been no order issued forbidding him from mentioning it.
"At the close of the Government's rebuttal argument - after the jury had been excused - (the defense attorney) objected to Mr. Walker's allegation and the fact that he made it in the presence of the jury," the Motion states. "The Court stated (the prosecutor) should have made a proper objection at the sidebar and advised that the exchange was regrettable. As a result of the Government's false allegation (and the Court's failure to intervene) and tirade, the jury was made to believe that (the defense attorney) had done something improper and that he was admonished by the Court as a result. This undoubtedly prejudiced Defendant to an extreme degree, as that was the last impression the jury had of Defendant prior to deliberation. The resulting prejudice casts considerable doubt on the jury's verdict and deprived Defendant of a fair trial."
The Motion also argues that the Court's refusal to continue the trial prevented the defense from adequately prepare for trial. At issue is the "staggeringly vast and disorganized discovery produced by the government," which the defense argued required additional time to evaluate at an August pretrial conference.
The Motion also argues that the evidence doesn't support a verdict - but the Court already ruled on a similar Motion. As is usual, following the government's case in chief the defense moved for a directive verdict, arguing that the prosecution hadn't proved their case. The Court denied that Motion.
On the judicial bias and animus argument, the Motion states that, during trial, the Court "made comments in the presence of the jury that were hostile and disparaging toward defense counsel."
The Motion outlines several statements argued to meet those qualifications, including during the cross examination of Landry on the second day of trial. The Court "aggressively chastised defense counsel regarding his attempt to introduce a... recording to impeach Mr. Landry," the Motion states.
Again during the questioning of Landry, the Court "curtly" denied a defense attempt to introduce evidence that would impeach Landry's testimony and stated before the jury "that Mr. Landry had not been impeached, and overtly called into question (defense counsel) understanding of the Rules of Evidence," the Motion states.
On the fourth day of trial, there was an exchange between the Court and defense counsel about an objection that resulted in "very high tension in the courthroom," and during closing arguments the Court made a mistake in agreeing with the prosecution about the Franques testimony.
"...the Court was particularly prejudicial in this instance because the very last impression the jury received of Defendant was his lead defense counsel being accused of wrongdoing by the Government and the Court agreeing to the same before unceremoniously instructing defense counsel - for the second time in this trial - to sit down," the Motion argues.
The Motion argues that these instances demonstrate "clear judicial bias against Defendant and animus toward defense counsel," and adds that the Court's conduct at trial "likely created a misimpression in the minds of jurors that the Court favored the prosecution and disfavored the defense."
"The Court appeared at times to make a concerted effort to diminish the aptitude and efficacy of defense counsel in the presence of the jury," the Motion states.
Here's the Motion:
