STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ELIZABETH BAKER MURRILL (2026)

Stay Issued; Remanded. See per curiam.

JBM

JDH

PDG

CRC

WHB

Supreme Court of Louisiana July 03, 2026

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2026-KD-00865

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR LAURIE WHITE, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

VS.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIZABETH B. MURRILL

On Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans Criminal

PER CURIAM

STAY ISSUED. The “[s]upervisory authority of this court is plenary, unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion of the court,” regardless of whether lower courts have acted. Marionneaux v. Hines, 2005-1191, p. 4 (La. 5/12/05), 902 So. 2d 373, 376. We have long recognized that the exercise of this authority is warranted when “the issues presented [are] of an extraordinary nature, time-sensitive, and of such significant public interest that the court's plenary, supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised.” State v. All Prop. & Cas. Ins. Carriers Authorized & Licensed To Do Bus. In State, 2006-2030, p. 4 (La. 8/25/06), 937 So. 2d 313, 318.

Like the United States Supreme Court, in evaluating a stay, we often consider: (1) whether the applicant has made a strong showing that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and, (4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).

In this case the Attorney General makes a compelling argument concerning the disturbing defects in the grand jury proceedings and in the trial court's handling of those proceedings. This indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties.

By all public accounts the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court violated express provisions of state law requiring that grand jury returns occur in the public eye, “in open court.” La C.Cr.P. art. 383. Numerous media outlets have stated that reporters were handcuffed and removed from these otherwise public proceedings.

This dispute arises from the Attorney General's defense of a recent duly enacted state law that abolished the office of Orleans Parish Criminal District Clerk of Court. Act 15 of the 2026 Regular Session was part of a package of bills directed at bringing the number of Orleans Parish judicial offices more in line with the other parishes of Louisiana. See e.g. Acts 746 and 748 of the 2026 Regular Session. This Court already held that Act 15 was a constitutional exercise of the legislature's authority. Crockett v. State of Louisiana c/w Napoleon v. City of New Orleans, 2026-CD-00594 (La. 6/1/26), --- So.3d ---. The seat abolished would otherwise have been held by Mr. Calvin Duncan.

Laurie White, the special prosecutor appointed in the instant matter, was previously Mr. Duncan's attorney. Ms. White is also currently being defended by Attorney General Murrill's office in a sexual harassment suit against Ms. White. The likely conflicts of interest precluding her involvement in this matter, if accurately stated, should have been obvious.

The Attorney General raises significant constitutional and legal issues with the potential application of La. R.S. 14:122 to this situation. She argues that she was merely performing her constitutional duty to defend the state's law and that her legal interpretation of that law was correct. She also contends that this particular criminal statute requires violence, force, extortionate threats, or true threats as defined by La. C.Cr.P. art. 14:122, which requires that those threats be unlawful or include a threat of bodily harm or death.

While the record before this Court is undeveloped, there is considerable support for the view that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits of a motion to quash this indictment on either a legal basis or due to apparent procedural irregularities. She obviously also suffers irreparable harm by allowing this matter to proceed without these important issues being addressed.

This Court finds that it is in the public interest to immediately stay these proceedings. Therefore, except as authorized by this Per Curiam, or pursuant to further order of this Court, this matter shall be and is hereby STAYED. We remand in order to allow the Attorney General to assert any and all necessary defensive pleadings, including motions to quash. This stay shall not prevent the filing of a response to any pleadings filed by the Attorney General. This stay shall not prevent the filing of motions for the recusal of either the special prosecutor or the trial judge, or responses thereto.

Weimer, C.J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Guidry and assigns additional reasons. Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons. Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons.