By Mrs. Eileen Hunter — about the author.
The ruling of April 29, 2026 gave two procedural reasons alongside its duplicative finding: the application had not been served on the Louisiana Attorney General, and it had not been styled a “successive” application, as La. C.Cr.P. art. 926 requires. The court called these an “inexcusable failure” to comply. (Ruling of April 29, 2026, as described in the Motion to Reconsider of June 4, 2026.) (Full transcription.)
The Motion to Reconsider answered that the Ouachita Parish District Attorney — the office that prosecuted the case — had been served and had notice; that the Attorney General was served once the omission was identified; that Mr. Hunter “acknowledges that the 2026 filing constitutes a successive application”; and that “the Court’s ruling identifies no prejudice resulting from the omission.” The supervisory writ filed July 9, 2026 makes it the third assignment of error: substantial constitutional claims dismissed “based upon curable — and cured — procedural defects.” (The writ application.)
The other half: Article 926 does require service on both offices and the successive caption, and the court was within the rule in noting both. Reconsideration was denied June 9, 2026. Whether the defects were “inexcusable” is now before the Second Circuit, which reviews the ruling for abuse of discretion. (Procedural history · what a Brady claim requires.)
Leave a Reply