A federal judge has denied Gary Haynes' motion for a new trial in his bribery case.
The longtime Lafayette prosecutor filed his motion last month; the government's response was filed a couple weeks later. 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.
U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph responded to each of those arguments; you can read his memorandum by scrolling down.
On the issue of improper exclusion of evidence, Haynes argued that his attorneys should have been able to play some of the FBI recordings that he says showed government witnesses said something different at one time. The judge agreed with the government, saying that Haynes' attorneys didn't lay the proper foundation.
"It is well-settled that evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admissible to impeach a witness. However, proof of such a statement may be elicited by extrinsic evidence only if the witness on cross-examination denies having made the statement," the court wrote. "Review of the trial transcripts shows that the Defendant was not able to introduce any audio recordings of (co-defendant) Dusty Guidry for purposes of impeachment, because each time defense counsel attempted to impeach Mr. Guidry with prior statements, Mr. Guidry did not deny that he had made the statements in question."
But in any event, the defense was able to get the information from the calls into evidence during cross-examination, the judge noted.
"Notwithstanding the Defendant’s failure to lay the proper foundation to enter extrinsic impeachment evidence, the Court did permit the Defendant to extensively refresh the memories of certain witnesses from clips of the recorded telephone calls. On each occasion, therefore, the Defendant was able to elicit the substance of the proffered portions of the calls through witness testimony," the court wrote.
On the issue of improperly included evidence, the judge said his pre-trial ruling on two issues stands.
In that ruling, "the Court ordered that the Government would be permitted to introduce evidence of a prior FBI bribery investigation and conviction for the purpose of showing that the Defendant, who was charged with obstruction of justice, was aware that the FBI previously used wiretaps to investigate public corruption in the 15th JDC’s district attorney’s office," the judge wrote.
The court did not allow the government to introduce evidence that one of the people convicted was Haynes' spouse. Now Haynes argues that "despite the Court’s ruling, the manner in which the Government questioned witnesses about this prior bribery investigation made it clear to the jurors that the subject of that investigation was the Defendant’s wife.
"The Defendant’s argument is conclusory and unfounded."
The judge outlined how careful he was during jury selection on this issue.
"The Court took great care to conduct voir dire (jury selection) in a manner that would not prejudice the Defendant by ensuring, among other things, that the jurors had no knowledge that the Defendant’s wife had been convicted in a similar scheme. The Defendant presents no evidence that the Court’s efforts were unsuccessful," the judge wrote.
On the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and statements, the judge addressed the issue of a co-defendant's wife, who did not testify but was questioned by investigators. Haynes' team raised issues with the government's production of her "corrections" to her FBI statement, as well as the government's objection to Clemmons' mention of her - in particular, the fact she was not called to testify - during his closing statements at trial.
Regarding her "corrections," the defense was able to question an FBI agent extensively about them, the court noted. And the prosecutor's objection was not improper, he added - because it is well-settled that jurors cannot consider in deliberations a decision not to call a witness.
"All things considered, the Court finds that the prosecutor’s comments – while more appropriately made at sidebar – were not improper. But even if they had been, the magnitude of any prejudicial effect was small. The verbal exchange was handled promptly by the Court and counsel were instructed to complete closing arguments. In short, the Court finds the prosecutor’s request for a jury instruction did not prejudice the Defendant, nor did it result in an unfair trial," the judge wrote.
The judge also rejected Haynes' argument that the evidence presented didn't support the jury's verdict.
"After a review of the entirety of the record in this case, as well as the Court’s recollections of the trial testimony, the demeanor of witnesses, and the ability of all parties to comprehensively present their evidence and arguments, the Court finds that the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence. A new trial is therefore not warranted on these grounds," the court wrote.
The judge also rejects the allegation that his rulings and demeanor were prejudiced against Haynes.
"Finally, and regrettably, the Motion also raises allegations against the Court of “judicial bias and animus.” Needless to say, this Court conducts its trials impartially and without bias or animus towards any party or their counsel. And neither in undersigned’s independent recollection of the instances cited in the Motion nor by reviewing transcript can the Court find any support for defense counsel’s assertion that the Court exhibited bias or animus towards defense counsel or the Defendant. In this regard, many of defense counsel’s characterizations and context given to the portions of the record discussed are misleading – including the tone and tenor of the Court’s discussions with counsel, the context of those discussions, and whether such exchanges even took place while the jury was present in the courtroom.
"Properly viewed, the referenced discussions fall firmly within the duty of the Court to manage the trial and preside over courtroom proceedings. Regardless, the defendant’s assertions fall far short of the required showing for a new trial."
Here's the judge's ruling:
You can read our story about the government's response here, but here's the actual document:
You can read our story about Haynes' motion here, but here's the actual document:
