Thurs night WWLTV will reveal that NOLA DA has never prosecuted any weapon at parade

[tactical723]

Thurs night 10PM WWLTV (Channel 4) newstory will be asking the NOLA DA why has not prosecuted anyone who was charged with carrying a weapon at a parade. Cant wait to see what he has to say.

 

[grasshopper]

Thanks for the heads up. I will be tuned in b/c I remember they were making a big deal saying how they arrested xxx number of people for carrying throughout the parades. Does not suprise me nothing has happened though

 

[j4cob]

I can tell you why none were prosecuted. Because none were law abiding citizens.

 

[drpc]

How many had a Concealed Carry Permit?

 

[LACamper]

Maybe because of the 'in a parade/ at a parade' dispute? Especially when the state police were giving the 'in a parade' advice? It would be hard to win a case when a state police sgt is called to testify that yes, he gave that advice to lots of people and it was posted online as his advice. DA's don't like to loose cases.

 

[Grim333]

They would have to prosecute half the people at the parades...

 

[spanky]

AT or IN?

eta: posted without reading the other replies.

 

[Bearco]

I will probably be asleep at 10pm, but I did set the DVR and I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Bearco]

I did not watch it, but here is a recap from wwltv.com
http://www.wwltv.com/news/eyewitnes...routes-end-without-convictions-205883461.html

Edit: here is the video: http://www.wwltv.com/video?id=205883461&sec=1292871&ref=rcvidmod

Cannizzaro said the law has never hit the courts because it is fatally flawed, doomed by poorly conceived legal language that renders the law useless.
The flaw, Cannizzaro said, stems from the Constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy, trying a person twice for the same crime based on the same set of facts.
With the parade gun law, the double jeopardy risk stems from the fact that the statute requires the gun to be used *in the commission of a crime of violence.*
Law professor Dane Ciolino said the wording puts prosecutors in the position of choosing whether to prosecute the gun law or the underlying violent crime, because trying them both would result in double jeopardy

Because the applicable violent crimes all carry a steeper penalty than the five-year maximum under the parade gun law, prosecutors like Cannizzaro have invariably decided to prosecute the crime with more teeth. Those crimes of violence include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, armed robbery and aggravated battery.

But Serpas said the law is still useful from a policing perspective, enabling officers to remove guns – and would-be shooters – from parade routes.

*The way we look at that is, we took guns off the street. That we removed a potential risk of people trying to enjoy Mardi Gras,* Serpas said. *So we’re going to tell the officers, charge everything that you think you have an element you can prove. Then you bring it over to the district attorney, and then they do what they do, which is very different and separate and apart from what we do.*

Cannizzaro agreed that having the law on the books may be useful for police. But he also said it is time to go back to the Legislature to amend the law to make it usable in court.

*I think the law as originally drafted, which required that a person be in possession of a gun within a certain distance of a parade route, made a lot of sense,* Cannizzaro said.

According to court records, most of the suspects booked under the law have ultimately been prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm, a misdemeanor with a maximum 6-month sentence.

 

[charliepapa]

so... it's not illegal to carry at a parade, UNLESS you commit a violent crime? violent crimes are illegal anyway, right?

I think it's pretty chicken$417 that the law is still on the books and even though Serpas knows it doesn't get prosecuted, that he states they can "use" it. if an arrest is made based solely on the carriage of a firearm at a parade, wouldn't that be false or unlawful arrest? (especially with Serpas' public admission)

 

[Bearco]

I think it's pretty chicken$417 that the law is still on the books and even though Serpas knows it doesn't get prosecuted, that he states they can "use" it. if an arrest is made based solely on the carriage of a firearm at a parade, wouldn't that be false or unlawful arrest? (especially with Serpas' public admission)

I would bet that public statement will eventually cause him more trouble in the future.

 

[JNieman]

I would be more than happy to clarify that law right now. I think the environment is beneficial to us, right now, and would be more than happy to put that topic before our current legislature.

 

[XD-GEM]

NOPD and DA better be careful. They are lining themselves up for a huge 1983 suit and may have to pay out LOTS of motorcycles.

 

[TruBrew]

I am confused. They are arresting people for "possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, at a parade". So the police are arresting people for possession and ignoring the fact that no violent crime was committed? That sounds like they are knowingly violating people's rights.

If they want to reduce illegal gun violence, why aren't the penalties for the current laws increased. Put people away for more than 6 months for illegal possession. Also increase the penalties for violent crimes committed with a gun.

 

[Bearco]

to my understanding, they were charged with a violent crime and this.

Law professor Dane Ciolino said the wording puts prosecutors in the position of choosing whether to prosecute the gun law or the underlying violent crime, because trying them both would result in double jeopardy

 

[Leonidas]

Cannizaro is lying his ass off. They violate double jeopardy daily. They call it "lesser included charges." Kill ONE person and you will likely be chaged with at least two. First degree, second degree, manslaughter and assault. Same crime, same facts.

His pants must be getting rather toasty.