STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MICHAEL HALL TIMOTHY HALL (2026)

Relator, the State of Louisiana (hereinafter “the State”), seeks review of the district court's April 29, 2026 ruling ordering disclosure of the audio recording of the witness's identification of Michael Hall and Timothy Hall (hereinafter “Defendants”). After consideration of the writ application before this Court and the applicable law, we grant the writ for the limited purpose of modifying the district court's ruling and order that the State submit a written transcript of the audio portion of the identification procedure reflecting the witness's identification of the perpetrators. This Court's June 10, 2026 order staying the matter is hereby lifted.

Discussion

The case involves a shooting and the identification of the alleged perpetrators by an eyewitness. During the NOPD's investigation into the shooting, an eyewitness identified the alleged perpetrators from a photographic lineup. During pre-trial discovery process, the State furnished Defendants with redacted discovery material. The State noted that it provided Defendants with all evidence except the video recording of the identification procedure, out of concern for the safety of the witness. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion seeking the actual recording of the eyewitness's identification. The State opposed the motion and one of the defendants filed an objection to the State's redacted discovery seeking the unredacted version of all discovery material, including the video of the identification. The district court conducted an ex parte hearing, pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 729.7, and found the State made a prima facie showing that the witness's safety may be compromised by the full disclosure of the identification procedure. The district court ordered the State to disclose only the audio recording of the identification procedure specifically, “after minute 2:40 [and] on.” This application for supervisory review followed.

A district court's discovery ruling to maintain redaction of identifying information of a witness is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Le, 2015-0455, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/27/15), 188 So.3d 1072, 1081. In the matter sub judice, this Court is tasked with balancing the safety of a witness with the constitutional Due Process rights afforded to all defendants. We recognize that competing interests must be balanced, specifically that of the State's duty to maintain a witness's safety, and redact any identifying information, and that of a defendant's Due Process rights. This Court has held that:

[T]he redacting party must establish through the introduction of sufficient evidence (as specially provided by Article 729.7 D), that the disclosure of identifying information of certain witnesses to that particular opposing party may compromise the safety of those aforementioned witnesses. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 729.7 A. The district judge, examining this evidence at the ex parte proceeding, must then find the redacting party's showing sufficiently compelling to hold that, had the opposing party been present to rebut that evidence, he would nonetheless have probably ruled in the redacting party's favor.

Id., 2015-0455, p. 9, 188 So.3d at 1078. “In determining whether a redacting party has made a sufficient prima facie showing under Article 729.7, a district judge determines whether the redacting party introduced sufficient evidence at the ex parte proceedings to establish that a causal relationship exists between the disclosure of identifying information of witnesses to an opposing party and the mere possibility that those witnesses’ safety will be impaired thereafter.” Id., 2015-0455, pp. 11-12, 188 So.3d at 1079-1080. The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that matters, such as the one in this case, “require[ ] a delicate balancing of the rights of the defendant to full and complete disclosure of exculpatory materials against the societal interest in protecting innocent witnesses who voluntarily come forward to testify.” State v. Miller, 2003-0796, p. 2 (La. 6/4/03), 848 So.2d 529, 530.

While the safety of the witness is paramount, so too is a defendant's right to disclosure of exculpatory material. “There is a tremendous societal interest in protecting citizens from danger and the fear of retaliation for doing that which any good citizen should do.” Id. Based on the balancing of interest required, we find the appropriate remedy is to provide Defendants with the identification procedure but in a different format than that ordered by the district court. Accordingly, we grant the writ for the limited purpose of modifying the district court's ruling and order that the State submit a written transcript of the audio portion of the identification procedure reflecting the witness's identification of the perpetrators. This Court's June 10, 2026 order staying the matter is hereby lifted.

WRIT GRANTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase