IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution, and other law set out below, to quash the indictment against him. In support of his motion, Mr. CLIENT states as follows:

1. There are various reasons for dismissing an indictment.1 For example, under La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 532, the Court has no discretion but to dismiss an indictment if:
(1) The indictment fails to charge an offense which is punishable under a valid statute.

* * *

(3) The indictment . . . contains a misjoinder of defendants. . . . In such case the court may permit the district attorney to sever the indictment into ... separate indictments.

* * *

(5) A bill of particulars has shown a ground for quashing the indictment under Article 485.

* * *

(9) The general venire or the petit jury venire was improperly drawn, selected, or constituted.

On information and belief, at least these provisions provide the basis for challenge in this case.
2. Equally, La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 485 reads in its entirety:
If it appears from the bill of particulars furnished under Article 484 . . . together with any particulars appearing in the indictment, that the offense charged in the indictment was not committed, or that the defendant did not commit it, or that there is a ground for quashing the indictment, the court may on its own motion, and on motion of the defendant shall, order that the indictment be quashed unless the defect is cured. The defect will be cured if the district attorney furnishes, within a period fixed by the court and not to exceed three days from the order, another bill of particulars which either by itself or together with any particulars appearing in the indictment so states the particulars as to make it appear that the offense charged was committed by the defendant, or that there is no ground for quashing the indictment, as the case may be.

Again, this article will provide a basis for quashing the indictment upon a hearing.
3. Also as La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 533 provides:
A motion to quash an indictment by a grand jury may also be based on one or more of the following grounds:

(1) The manner of selection of the general venire, the grand jury venire, or the grand jury was illegal.

(2) An individual grand juror was not qualified under Article 401.

(3) A person, other than a grand juror, was present while the grand jurors were deliberating or voting, or an unauthorized person was present when the grand jury was examining a witness.

(4) Less than nine grand jurors were present when the indictment was found.

(5) The indictment was not endorsed "a true bill," or the endorsement was not signed by the foreman of the grand jury.

Again, this would provide multiple bases for quashing the indictment against Mr. CLIENT.
4. The indictment does not provide Mr. CLIENT with a full understanding of nature and cause of the crime charged against him in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 13 of the Louisiana Constitution, nor does it recite details of offense that must be provided. State v. Legendre, 362 So. 2d 570, 571 (La. 1978); State v. Sonnier, 379 So. 2d 1336 (La. 1979). For example, it gives no notice of how the death penalty may be justified.
5. The question of notice is not only a matter of state law. As a matter of due process, the prosecution must "inform[] appellant what was intended to have been charged and what he must be prepared to meet." United States v. Holcomb, 797 F.2d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1986); accord Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110, 111 S. Ct. 1723, 114 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1991) (failure to give notice of the death penalty unconstitutional); United States v. Kurka, 818 F.2d 1427, 1431 (9th Cir. 1987). The federal courts have therefore held consistently that an indictment must contain all facts and elements of the alleged offense necessary to inform the accused of the charge so that the accused can fully prepare his defense. See, e.g., Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974) (citing Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S. Ct. 417, 76 L. Ed. 861 (1932), & United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S. Ct. 113, 98 L. Ed. 92 (1953)); United States v. Hayes, 775 F.2d 1279, 1282 (4th Cir. 1985) (indictment must charge all essential elements and facts of offense to enable defendant to prepare defense); United States v. Fesler, 781 F.2d 384, 391 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 106 S. Ct. 1977 (1986).
1A superficial interpretation of the law makes it difficult for the accused to file a meaningful challenge to an indictment, since it might seem on cursory review that the accused is severely limited in what he or she may do to review the propriety of actions that go on behind the closed doors of the Grand Jury. The Code states, for example:

A. Members of the grand jury, all other persons present at a grand jury meeting, and all persons having confidential access to information concerning grand jury proceedings, shall keep secret the testimony of witnesses and all other matters occurring at, or directly connected with, a meeting of the grand jury. However, after the indictment, such persons may reveal statutory irregularities in grand jury proceedings to defense counsel, the attorney general, the district attorney, or the court, and may testify concerning them. Such persons may disclose testimony given before the grand jury, at any time when permitted by the court, to show that a witness committed perjury in his testimony before the grand jury. A witness may discuss his testimony given before the grand jury with counsel for a person under investigation or indicted, with the attorney general or the district attorney, or with the court.

La. Code Cr. Pro. Art. 434. For reasons that the defense has detailed in other motions, the alleged secrecy of the Grand Jury is maintained in violation of the Constitution. However, the defense does not wish to investigate fully the issues that must be litigated under this motion without first receiving this Court's permission. Therefore, this is of necessity a very preliminary motion on this subject.
??