James E. Boren v. Earl B. Taylor
223 So. 3d 1130
| La. | 2017Background
- Attorney James E. Boren, retained to investigate possible post-conviction claims for client Stephan Bergeron (convicted of rape), requested prosecutor files from the St. Landry Parish District Attorney on June 30, 2015 under the Louisiana Public Records Law.
- The ADA denied the request under La. R.S. 44:31.1, demanding Boren state the grounds for post-conviction relief and represent those grounds were not raised on appeal.
- Boren sued for a writ of mandamus under La. R.S. 44:35 after the district court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review.
- Central legal question: whether the statutory restriction in La. R.S. 44:31.1 (limiting access for incarcerated felons who exhausted appeals) applies to attorneys requesting records on behalf of such clients.
- The Supreme Court held the statute’s plain language restricts only the incarcerated individual, not his outside attorney, and that Boren’s request should have been evaluated under the general public-records rules (La. R.S. 44:31 and 44:32).
- The Court reversed, directed the district court to issue a writ ordering production, and to award attorney fees, costs, and damages as appropriate under La. R.S. 44:35.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of La. R.S. 44:31.1 to attorney requests | Boren: statute applies only to incarcerated individuals, not attorneys | Taylor: attorney stands in client’s shoes; restrictions should apply to prevent greater rights via counsel | Held: 44:31.1 applies only to an "individual in custody after sentence"; does not restrict attorneys |
| Scope of permissible inquiry by custodian under Public Records Law | Boren: custodian may only ask identity and age per La. R.S. 44:32(A) | Taylor: may inquire whether requester is an incarcerated, post-appeal felon and whether request is limited to Art. 930.3 grounds | Held: Custodian limited to inquiries authorized by La. R.S. 44:32(A); cannot impose 44:31.1 queries on an attorney |
| Legality of denial and remedy | Boren: denial under 44:31.1 was improper; seeks mandamus and fees/damages under 44:35 | Taylor: denial justified by statute to protect against broad fishing expeditions by exhausted prisoners | Held: Denial was improper; mandamus ordered to compel compliance with 44:31 and 44:32 without regard to 44:31.1; district court to award fees/damages as appropriate |
| Policy/absurd-result argument | Boren/Amici: applying 44:31.1 to attorneys would hinder identification of post-conviction grounds that depend on prosecutor files | Taylor: applying statute uniformly prevents incarcerated persons gaining more access via representatives | Held: Court found applying 44:31.1 to attorneys would be inconsistent with plain statutory text and public-records presumption of access; rejected defendant’s policy argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d 691 (La. 2001) (Public Records Law construed broadly to guarantee access)
- Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La. 1984) (statutory exceptions to access must be specific and unequivocal)
- DeSalvo v. State, 624 So.2d 897 (La. 1993) (doubts about public access resolved in favor of disclosure)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016) (example where prosecutor files produced evidence of racial bias in jury selection)