Sheriff investigates D.A. over handling of grand juries

Click here for updates on this story

     MANSFIELD, La (KTBS) — DeSoto Parish Sheriff Jayson Richardson launched an investigation into possible improprieties in the way District Attorney Gary Evans has handled grand juries over the past two years.

Richardson notified Evans Tuesday that he is the target of an investigation.

This comes a month shy of the Nov. 3 election in which Evans is seeking reelection to his second term. Recently retired DeSoto District Judge Charles Adams is challenging Evans.

While the DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s Office is the lead, Richardson said he’s receiving assistance from federal authorities with a portion of the investigation.

“There are certain aspects that could be under federal jurisdiction so we will keep in close contact with them … when we get to those points,” he said.

Once completed, the investigation will be turned over for review to the appropriate agency, whether that is the federal government or state attorney general.

Evans has not immediately responded to KTBS’ request for comment.

It’s no secret in DeSoto Parish that Richardson and Evans also have had their own legal tussles over the past two years that have played out in court. But Richardson said the soured political relationship played no role in the investigation that was sparked by questions raised over the past two years regarding grand jury proceedings.

“Again, these are things that were not just created during political season. This has been an ongoing situation for some time, at least the allegations, are of that nature they have been going on for some time,” Richardson said.

The sheriff said he could not discuss specifics of the investigation. But he termed the allegations as “concerning,” especially considering the seriousness of the matters that go before a grand jury, which includes up to death penalty cases.

He said it is “our intention is to find the truth and to just present that, whatever that truth may be, present that to the appropriate individuals.”

MOTION TO QUASH

But what may have been a turning point happened last month when Richardson was served with a document that appeared to be a grand jury subpoena, saying he was ordered by the 42nd Judicial Court and grand jury to turn over documents related to the 2019 arrest of a man booked into the DeSoto Detention Center by state police.

The document was signed by a deputy clerk who works for Clerk of Court Jeremy Evans, who is the district attorney’s son, and indicated it was witnessed by court judges on Aug. 19. Richardson was directed to provide the documents by 9 a.m. the next morning.

Because of the unusual format of the document, Richardson consulted his attorney who filed a motion to quash, or deny the request. Additionally, his attorney said the documents sought by the D.A. were already in the hands of the Louisiana State Police, which is investigating the matter since it involves a former jailer and possible use of excessive force.

District Judge Amy Burford McCartney granted the motion to quash. In a separate court document filed Monday, McCartney said the document, or subpoena, issued to Richardson was not signed off by her, nor did the grand jury authorize it, as required by state law.

But she did not stop there. McCartney went on to detail other “irregularities and/or disturbing behaviors” by Evans’ office related to his interactions with the grand jury.

The information was in a ruling McCartney filed in an unrelated case. Defense attorneys in a pending death penalty case want any grand jury proceedings involving their client recorded.

McCartney, who is being challenged in the Nov. 3 election by Attorney Brenda Ford, had been scheduled to issue her ruling on the matter in open court in April, but the pandemic shutdown caused the hearing to be postponed. Former Judge Adams ruled on it previously, but the state asked McCartney to reconsider the order.

Grand jury sessions are recorded in some jurisdictions, but that’s not been done in DeSoto Parish.

A grand jury functions differently from a trial jury in that it hears only one side of the case – the side presented by the government or district attorney. It doesn’t convict, but instead issues indictments, or formal accusations, about whether a person should – or should not – stand trial.

The deliberations are held in secret. And state law dictates other aspects, such as empowering the grand jury to convene itself and meet any time or any place within the parish. But the grand jury still has to report in open court.

But there are other do’s and don’ts, too, when it comes to the grand jury.

JUDGE’S WRITTEN REASONS

Court records detail the following concerns McCartney has about grand jury sessions:

April 2018

The DA presented a case to the grand jury and invited the attorney of the target of the investigation to testify for his client. The target was not present in the grand jury room and the attorney was not a witness to the alleged crime.

According to grand jurors’ statements, the target’s attorney testified to his client’s good character, the fact that he had known the target for 15 years and that the target’s former spouses were out to get him.

“Despite the target-friendly information provided by the target’s attorney, the grand jury was prepared to return a true bill,” the judge wrote.

When the assistant DA learned the grand jury intended to indict the target, he told the jurors he did not believe Evans could win the case. Further the assistant DA said he believed a trial would be a waste of taxpayer money.

“It is the court’s understanding that a federal agency has commenced an investigation into the District Attorney’s Office’s actions involving the April 2018 grand jury meeting,” the ruling states.

A review by KTBS of the state law regarding grand juries indicates there are restrictions about who can be present during the sessions. It’s limited to the district attorney, assistant district attorneys, the attorney general or his assistants, the witness under examination, the person sworn to record the proceedings, and an interpreter if needed.

An attorney for a target of a grand jury investigation may be present during the testimony of the target but can only consult with the client. The attorney is prohibited from objecting, addressing or arguing before the panel, the law states.

Oct. 5, 2018

Evans attended a Louisiana House of Representatives committee meeting and “pleaded” with it to instruct Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera to release his report addressing the DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s Office’s involvement with the LACE program. Evans said his purpose for needing the report was to present it to a grand jury on Oct. 8, 2018. Purpera declined, saying reports are not issued until they’re finished and that one wasn’t.

Also on Oct. 5, 2018, Sheriff Richardson, through counsel, filed a motion to recuse Evans and his office from any grand jury proceedings. He alleged Evans was attempting through the grand jury to sabotage Richardson’s election bid on Nov. 6, 2018 against Evans’ “preferred candidate,” the now-retired Mansfield Police Chief Gary Hobbs.

Prior to the hearing, Evans self-recused from any investigation and prosecution of any alleged improprieties regarding the LACE program. Adams, who as judge then presided over the hearing, ruled Evans was prevented from presenting the case.

The matter was turned over to the state attorney general’s office, which did not proceed with prosecution of any former or current deputies.

August 2019

Evans assembled a grand jury “without notice and contrary to the law,” McCartney wrote, in the DeSoto Parish Library and considered five cases. As a result, five indictments were issued.

However, rather than return the true bills in open court as required by law, Evans filed the bills of indictment with the clerk of court.

“As the bills of indictment were not properly returned, the District Attorney’s Office has since filed bills of information in each of the five cases,” the judge wrote.

March 2020

Again without notice to the court, McCartney wrote, Evans assembled the grand jury in the DA’s office and presented two cases. One indictment was returned and one was not.

The grand jury did not appear before the court to issue its report, which is required by law. Instead the assistant district attorney brought the grand jury foreman into open court and filed a report saying at least nine grand jurors met.

Those same grand jurors were still empaneled on Aug. 20, which is when Richardson was to provide documents related to the 2019 arrest to the grand jury.

McCartney quizzed the grand jurors in open court if they issued what was purported to be a subpoena to Richardson. The grand jurors told the court they had not met on their own, which is contrary to the statement included in the report prepared by Evans.

“The … examples are not an exhaustive list of the irregularities and/or concerning behaviors exhibited by the District Attorney’s Office. However, the court believes the examples are sufficient to inform the parties, and reviewing courts, of the serious concerns that the court has regarding the DeSoto Parish District Attorney’s use and/or misuse of the grand jury,” McCartney stated.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.