Amite- On November 8, 2011, in the case of the State of Louisiana vs. Brian Registar, defense attorney Doug Brown motioned to recuse not only every judge in the 21st judicial district, but also the entire District Attorney’s office, said District Attorney Scott M. Perrilloux.
The defendant, Brian Registar, who is charged with Creation Operation of a Clandestine Laboratory, and Possession of Schedule II Drugs, is a co-defendant in an unrelated federal lawsuit with Judge Elizabeth Wolfe.
Brown alleged that, due to this connection, any prosecutory decisions made by the 21st judicial district would be “suspect.” The attorney explained that whether or not there was actual bias, the case was “tainted,” and that if the defendant was convicted, and his sentence was considered too harsh, or too lenient, the concern would be a result of the defendant’s connection to Judge Wolfe. In regards to the District Attorney’s office, Brown believes that a recusal would be appropriate due to the close relationship between the District Attorney and Sheriff Daniel Edwards, who is also a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Brown then motioned that the case be handed over to the Attorney General’s office.
Prosecutor for the case, Assistant District Attorney Le’anne Malnar, argued that Brown’s motion did not provide explicit reasons why Judge Waguespack, who is presiding over Registar’s case, should be recused aside from the fact that she and Judge Wolfe are both judges in the 21st judicial district. Malnar then explained that although the District Attorney’s office and the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s office have a close working relationship, it was not a sufficient reason to recuse all Assistant District Attorneys.
Malnar explained that while she is prosecutor for Division F, Judge Wolfe’s division, she also prosecutes all Meth cases, which are allotted to division H, Judge Waguespack’s division, stating that was not an adequate reason for recusal.
Ad Hoc Judge Elaine Dimicelli denied Brown’s motion, explaining that he had not proven that there would be any actual bias or prejudice in the case’s outcome concerning the District Attorney’s office, or any of the judges in the 21st judicial district, said Perrilloux.