Prosecutors have filed their response to longtime Lafayette prosecutor Gary Haynes' motion for a new trial.
Haynes filed his motion last month; the government's response was filed on Thursday. Both motions are embedded below so you can read them for yourself. The government's response was filed by the prosecutors in the case, Luke Walker, John Nickel and Steven Loew. Haynes' motion 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.
Haynes' 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 government responded to each of these claims.
On the issue of the admission and exclusion of evidence, the government argued that the defense failed to lay the proper foundation for the admission of several conversations. Although the witnesses in question - Dusty Guidry and Don Landry - testified they didn't remember a particular statement, they did not deny making those statements, the government argues.
"Guidry did not deny that he made statements but simply could not remember making statements. Once he listened to the calls, he admitted making the statement. The Defendant was able to elicit the substance of the call through the witness," the government's response states.
"The Defendant also argues that it was fundamentally unfair to allow the Government to play calls while “the Defendant was limited to merely refreshing the witness’s recollection outside of the presence of the jury.” The Defendant never laid the proper foundation for admitting their recordings nor did the Defendant give a valid rule under the Federal Rules of Evidence for the recordings to be introduced on cross-examination," the Motion continues.
But again, the government argues, the defense was able to get the substance of the calls in question to the jury by asking the witness about them.
That also applied to the exclusion of corrections to a statement made by co-defendant Leonard Franques' wife, the government argues. She submitted corrections to her FBI statement more than three years after she made it.
"The Court allowed FBI Special Agent Doug Herman to be extensively cross-examined about Michelle Franques’ corrections to her FBI (statement). The jury heard virtually a line-by-line recitation of Michelle Franques’ FBI (statement)," the government's opposition states. "Furthermore, the Court correctly denied the admission of the document because of the inherent untrustworthiness of the way in which it was drafted and submitted. Specifically, the Court noted the peculiar timing of the document in relation to the case."
The government says the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are "without merit."
One document that the defense argues wasn't produced on time was a document involving Franques' wife again, but that document was produced almost two weeks prior to trial and the defense used it extensively in its cross-examination, the government argued.
Another point the defense argued was prosecutorial misconduct involved prosectors' objections to parts of Clemons' closing argument. Those objections were proper, the response argues.
"Throughout his closing argument, Mr. Clemons testified and argued facts outside of the record," the government argues.
The government also rejects the defense claims that a continuance should have been granted.
"The Defendant was indicted on September 18, 2024, and his trial began on September 8, 2025. The Defendant had ten days shy of a year to prepare for trial, and his arguments asserting that he did not have enough time to prepare are meritless. The Government went above and beyond its discovery obligations in this case," the government argues.
The government's evidence was voluminous, but prosecutors provided excel lists of each item, and let defense counsel know what software program was used to produce the evidence, the government argued.
"Although the case was designated complex, it was a straightforward bribery scheme, and the Government only called eleven witnesses. As noted previously, the Government provided discovery early, provided “hot docs” over ten months before trial, met with defense counsel in the weeks preceding trial to review “hot docs,” and provided excel spreadsheets with an index and description of the discovery," the opposition states.
The government also mentions Clemons' experience - he served as a federal prosecutor for more than a decade - several times in their opposition.
"Finally, the Defendant had experienced and diligent defense counsel. Not only did defense counsel extensively cross-examine the Government’s witnesses, but they called more witnesses in their case than the Government called in its case. The Court did not err and certainly did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s second motion to continue," the opposition states.
And, although the government admits that the trial was long and the parties were both aggressive, they also argue that the Court was not prejudiced.
"The two-week trial of the Defendant, Gary Haynes, was often contentious, with both the prosecution and the defense in heated exchanges both in front of and outside the presence of the jury. The Court was left with the difficult job of controlling the evidence and arguments made before the jury all while ruling on evidentiary issues. Having that as a backdrop, the claims made by the defense in the allegation of judicial bias are completely without merit," the opposition states.
Lastly, the government says the jury's verdict was "amply" supported by the evidence. The verdict doesn't comport with the defendant's theory of the case - but it did follow the evidence, the government argues.
"In closing arguments, the Government presented evidence that supported each element of each count. Each element was supported by an exhibit or mention of testimony. In fact, most elements were supported by recordings of the Defendant’s own voice. The Government put on ample evidence to support a conviction—as evidenced by the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict for all counts after deliberation. For these reasons, the jury’s verdict was well-supported by the evidence in this case," the government wrote.
Here's the government's response:
You can read our story about Haynes' motion here, but here's the actual document:
