State v. Cooper, 50 So. 3d 115

Cooper was charged with second degree murder in the Fifteenth Judicial District; trial led to a guilty verdict and life sentence, later reversed post-conviction for Crawford v. Washington violations, awaiting retrial.
While awaiting retrial, Cooper challenged the Fifteenth JDC's local 2010 Plan for non-capital case allotment, seeking random assignment and recusal of judges.
The 2010 Plan created tracks in Acadia, Vermilion, and Lafayette parishes, with initial two-year home-parish assignments and random reassignment thereafter; non-capital cases assigned by offense date within tracks.
Trial court upheld the 2010 Plan as valid under state law; the Court of Appeal granted relief for random allotment, stayed retrial, and triggered expedited review by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, concluding the 2010 Plan does not violate Rule 14.0, statutes, or defendants' constitutional rights, and that due process and equal protection are not violated.
Court emphasizes district courts may tailor admissible allotment plans for efficiency within the uniform rules, and that the system does not create a separate or reduced-status court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the 2010 Plan comply with Rule 14.0 on random allotment?	Cooper argues plan is non-random by track assignment tied to parishes.	Cooper misreads 14.0; district court sets method of random allotment, not clerks alone.	No violation; plan valid with respect to random allotment principle.
Does the plan violate La. R.S. 13:502 on alternate sittings and session control?	Plan contradicts statutory sede of judges across parishes.	Statute's intent is pragmatic, not literalmusical chairs; district complies with alternation and availability.	Not violated; plan understood to respect broader statutory intent.
Does the plan offend due process or equal protection?	Non-uniform assignment harms defendants; unequal treatment of felony cases.	Felony defendants are not a suspect class; rational relation to legitimate interests; costs and efficiency justify plan.	No due process or equal protection violation.
Does the plan infringe judicial independence or create a specialized court?	Minority judges are subordinated; plan partitions authority into tracks.	District remains a single court; no specialized court; independence preserved; voting rights not implicated.	No violation of independence or creation of a specialized court.

State v. Simpson, 551 So.2d 1303 (La. 1989) (due process for random or rotating allotment when selecting judge)
State v. Reed, 653 So.2d 1176 (La. 1995) (rotation/allotment susceptible to manipulation if triggers district attorney actions)
State v. Huls, 676 So.2d 160 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1996) (rotation by DA actions not acceptable for felony case allotment)
State v. Gutweiler, 979 So.2d 469 (La. 2008) (statutory interpretation: legislative intent; absurd consequences avoided)
State v. Debaillon, 51 La. Ann. 788, 25 So. 648 (1899) (district judges' authority to sit in multiple parishes and continuous sessions)
Piper v. Olinde Hardware & Supply Co., Inc., 288 So.2d 626 (La. 1974) (district court as single court; internal divisions do not create separate courts)
Safety Net for Abused Persons v. Segura, 692 So.2d 1038 (La. 1997) (coexisting allowances for judicial authority and hierarchy)
State v. Granger, 982 So.2d 779 (La. 2008) (review standards for equal protection in criminal procedure)