Lawyer on plea: ‘Damn the Torpedoes’

The attorney who counseled Chad Roy Louviere to enter a guilty plea to the crime of first-degree murder in connection with a 1997 hostage standoff that claimed the life of a bank teller said in open court that he did not inform his client of all the defenses that could be raised when the former deputy agreed to doing so, despite the potential that it could hasten a date with the executioner.

“It was damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead,” was how the lawyer, David Stone, described the decision to proceed with a plea of guilty once Louviere agreed to the idea, on the morning of a court appearance at which he entered it.

But Stone, who still practices in the Alexandria area, never went so far as to state that he mishandled the case, while acknowledging that throwing the case on the mercy of the jury or forcing a deal from prosecutors is a form of strategy. He also said that the guilty plea was hastily arranged and unexpected.

That Stone did not fall on his sword last week during testimony before District Judge John Walker in Houma means the judge’s balancing act, as he determines whether Louviere’s 1999 conviction and death sentence should be set aside, could be that much more difficult, with no easy answers emerging so far.

Louviere shot and killed Pamela Duplantis after raping a woman in a cane field on Oct. 6, 1997, and driving to the former ArgentBank on Grand Caillou Road where his estranged wife worked. During the 25-hour standoff, Louviere raped three women in the bank, after Duplantis was killed. He entered a guilty plea before Judge Edward J. Gaidry and, after a trial to determine his penalty before a Baton Rouge jury seated in Houma, was sentenced to die.

Post-conviction relief hearings based on a massive legal brief filed by Louviere’s current attorneys began in January. They allege that Louviere’s guilty plea with no deal in the works was the result of bad lawyering. Louviere’s original attorneys also never properly explored the potential of an insanity defense, never sought examinations to determine if he was fit to stand trial, and never thoroughly explored his claim that the shooting of Duplantis was unintentional, court papers say.

Post-conviction relief, according to legal experts, is an unusual step usually taken only in capital cases, although it is available in other cases as well. A key component of getting a new trial is sufficient evidence that even one member of a jury choosing death might have been swayed to find for life in prison if certain facts had been presented.

Stone’s testimony was thus seen as an important element – though not the only one – of Louviere’s current claim.

Under questioning by Louviere’s lead attorney, Caroline Tillman, Stone said that it is not unusual in death cases for attorneys to “go to families, sometimes work with them, and see if they would be amenable to accepting something other than the death penalty. A lot of begging is involved. You pull out the stops, whatever you can… A life plea is certainly something I wanted to get for Mr. Louviere.”

Louviere was already facing life in prison for the cane field rape, which, like the bank standoff, occurred while he was still wearing his Terrebonne Sheriff’s Office uniform. Being able to trade off the murder charge for another life sentence, Stone said, would not have placed Louviere in any worse of a situation.

But Stone also testified that broached the question of a plea bargain with prosecutors, in connection with crimes, which, at the time, had a profound effect on the community as a whole, resulted in a “fairly adamant ‘no.’”

“But they all say that at first,” Stone said.

How, Tillman asked Stone, did his guilty plea decision “fit into this scheme?”

“Not terribly well,” was Stone’s reply.

During his testimony, Stone exhibited signs that he harbored regrets about how he handled Louviere, noting that he has not taken a death penalty case since then. He also described the difficulties faced during his handling of the case. Money for experts was not forthcoming. He and other attorneys were not being paid.

Had a potentially effective insanity defense been developed by the time the plea was entered, Stone said, he would have used it.

But only one psychiatrist had been clear on that possibility and she was still in the process of doing her work, Stone said.

Appellate records indicate that other doctors had examined Louviere, but their findings did not appear encouraging from the defense perspective.

“We didn’t have it (an insanity defense) at that point in time, or had concerns about whether we had it or hadn’t fully developed it,” Stone said. “I thought we were getting somewhere with it but hadn’t gotten all the way to where I would be comfortable presenting it.”

During Stone’s testimony, the orange jumpsuit clad Louviere, shackled and wearing a stun belt over which state correctional officer escort had control, appeared to be paying close attention, occasionally whispering to one of his attorneys.

Pamela Duplantis’ family, along with women victimized by Louviere during the standoff, were seated in the courtroom, as they have been during all the proceedings this year.

Under continued questioning from Tillman, Stone said entering the guilty plea was a way of expressing remorse and accepting responsibility.

“It has a benefit of diminishing the impact on the victims because they may or may not have to testify,” he said. “Passage of time alone will sometimes cool the ardor for the death penalty.”

Stone admitted that entering guilty plea would relieve some of the burdens representing Louviere had posed.

“Yes, it closes a chapter in the case,” Stone said. “And we were having problems… It would reduce the work load in the sense that I had two lawyers focused on that one project … I am sure it was going through my mind.”

Stone said he asked Louviere about pleading prior to a fairly routine court appearance in December 1998, at which prosecutors were to have announced an amendment to his indictment.

He expected resistance from his already problematic client – which he initially received.

But then, according to Stone, Louviere changed his mind just a few minutes later.

When a client proceeds with what you wish him to do, Stone said, there is little point in arguing with him. The insanity defense potential and other defenses, he acknowledged, were never brought up. Prosecutors and the judge were notified and the plea was entered.

The appellate record notes Gaidry’s questioning of Louviere to determine that the plea was voluntary and that the defendant was making an informed decision.

An attempt to withdraw the guilty plea was later made by Stone, but it was denied. The denial was held up on appeal.

Under cross-examination by Assistant District Attorney Ellen Doskey, Stone elaborated on the financial setbacks involving Louviere’s defense.

Doskey asked the question that some legal experts later said was a key element of whether the case was poorly enough lawyered to result in the defendant being denied his right to a fair trial.

“In your training, a decision to focus on mitigation and the acceptance of the guilt of a crime is an appropriate strategy,” she said.

“Yes,” Stone said.

Further proceedings are expected in July. But first the Louisiana Supreme Court must decide whether an emergency request from defense attorneys – that they not be compelled to provide prosecutors with all reports on which experts who will later testify – is valid.