Leftwich v. Alcorn
2011 OK CR 27
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Deborah Leftwich filed an application for original jurisdiction, a petition for writ prohibition, and in the alternative a petition for writ of mandamus in CF-2010-8067, District Court of Oklahoma County.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court previously declined to assume jurisdiction and dissolved a stay on the related proceedings (Leftwich, 2011 OK 80, 262 P.3d 750).
- This Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters but no rule or statute authorizes original jurisdiction in this context.
- The petition seeks extraordinary relief and argues the district court proceedings implicate the Speech or Debate Clause in Article V, § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
- The majority declines to assume original jurisdiction and rules the petition is premature for lack of a proper factual record and proper relief under Rule 10.1–10.6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court may assume original jurisdiction over Leftwich’s petition | Leftwich seeks original jurisdiction to review district court rulings | Court rules no mechanism in Rules or statute for original jurisdiction in this context | Declined to assume original jurisdiction |
| Scope of the Speech or Debate Clause in Article V, §22 in a criminal context | Clause provides broad protection for legislators against inquiry | Clause does not provide absolute privilege against criminal inquiry; felonies may be prosecuted | Clause is not absolute; criminal inquiry into felonies may proceed under controlled scope |
| Prematurity and adequacy of record for mandamus/prohibition relief | Relief necessary to prevent potential privilege violations | Record lacking; no clear entitlement or adequate alternative relief shown | Petition premature; relief denied for lack of record and improper posture |
| Adequacy of other remedies and need for a final record | Dismissal or suppression of privileged testimony may be necessary | There are other remedies (dismissal, direct appeal) if privilege is violated | Not addressed on merits due to prematurity; no basis to grant extraordinary relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Brock v. Thompson, 1997 OK 127 (Okla. 1997) (Speech or Debate Clause guidance and civil privilege scope in Oklahoma)
- Howard v. Webb, 1977 OK 68 (Okla. 1977) (Arrest privilege under Article V, § 22; civil context comparison to federal law)
- Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1972) (Speech or Debate Clause scope and non-legislative activity inquiry)
- United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1972) (Relation between arrest privilege and Speech or Debate Clause; not absolute)
- Leftwich v. Court of Criminal Appeals, 2011 OK 80 (Okla. 2011) (Supreme Court order addressing original jurisdiction and related issues)
- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (U.S. 1803) (Judicial duty to say what the law is; authority of courts)