STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DARRELL DEWAYNE DRAUGHN (2025)

Death penalty litigation has and continues to be an ever-evolving and complex part of our system of justice. For far too many reasons, this matter has lingered without resolution and at too high a cost. I understand and appreciate that this matter should be litigated and resolved expeditiously, and from the perspective of the family of the victim, justice delayed is often justice denied. However, while setting an execution date might serve a laudable goal of expediting the proceeding, doing so in this case and thereby forcing the implementation of all the protocols related to a death sentence before evaluating whether that can be realistically accomplished, only creates other delays and burdens the system with additional costs

In my view, the most expedient procedure is for the district court to set a status conference, set all motions for hearing, set deadlines, ensure these deadlines are followed, and move the matter to a just conclusion ensuring that all rights recognized by the law are being afforded to the state and the defendant.¹

Time and time again the United State Supreme Court has reminded us “death is different” because that sentence, once imposed, cannot be rectified. It is incumbent on our system of justice to ensure the imposition of the sentence is properly applied, not in haste, but without delay for the sake of delay. Prudence dictates that proceedings must be expedited in a logical manner which ensures the rights of both the state and the defendant are properly protected and not lost in an effort to hastily resolve the matter.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the defendant does not have a right to post-conviction proceedings according to the United States Constitution, the states can, and Louisiana has, established this right, which should be afforded to the defendant unless that right has been abused. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 924 et seq.

Weimer, C.J., additionally concurring.