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

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

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

NOTICE OF PROPOSED STIPULATION

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and provides notice to this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution that he is prepared to stipulate to the cause and manner of death of the decedent in this case. In support of his notice, Mr. Client states as follows:

1. Nobody argues but that John Doe, the decedent in this case, was killed. The only argument is who did it. It makes no sense to spend several days presenting evidence that has no bearing on anything. Neither does it make any sense to try to prejudice the jury against Mr. Client by showing a series of gruesome pictures that are not relevant to anything. The issue in this case is not that a crime was committed, but who did it.
2. A photograph must be excluded if the prosecution fails to show that "[t]he probative value outweighs any prejudice." State v. Baldwin, 388 So. 2d 664, 675 (La. 1980); accord State v. Brogdon, 457 So. 2d 616, 623 (La. 1983); State v. Ford, 489 So. 2d 1250, 1260 (La. 1986) (trial court must ask whether "whatever prejudicial effect they might have . . . on the jury outweigh[s] their evidentiary value"); State v. Kirkpatrick, 443 So. 2d 546 (La. 1984) (trial court must find "that the probative value of the photographs outweighs the possible inflammatory effect").
3. Obviously, probative value is assessed by looking to the facts that need to be proved by evidence, not the facts that have already been proved. "A stipulation to the matter sought to be proved by the photographs necessarily bears upon a balancing of the probative value of the photographs against their prejudicial effect." State v. Lindsey, 404 So. 2d 466, 475 (La. 1981); State v. Prejean, 379 So. 2d 240, 245 (La. 1979) (trial court should "determine whether the proffered stipulation was so complete as to render the photographs wholly needless"); State v. Watson, 449 So. 2d 1321, 1326 (La. 1984) (in considering admissibility of photographs, "[a]n offered stipulation bears upon this balancing test").
4. Rather than indulge in the customary, transparent effort to prejudice the jury, then, Mr. Client offers the following stipulation (and the prosecution is welcome to alter it to suit their purposes--doubtless Mr. Client can agree to any reasonable proposal made by the state):
The parties stipulate that John Doe, born on November 24, 1985, was killed when strangled with "fishing" line.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Client offers the foregoing stipulation to the prosecution, or requests that the prosecution respond with a stipulation that would be preferable to the state.
??

(..continued)