STATE OF LOUISIANA. A 14% JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ‘VS. NO.: 21573-17 : PARISH OF CALCASIEU JOEY JULIAN : STATE OF LOUISIANA FILED: DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the defendant, JOEY JULIAN (hereinafter “Mr. Julian”), who moves for discovery sanctions pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 729.5(A) for the following reasons to wit: FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 ‘Mr. Julian was charged by Bill of Indictment on December 14, 2017 with Second Degree Murder, Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon and Theft of a Motor Vehicle. A copy of the Indictment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”. 2 Thereafter, on January 29, 2018, defense counsel requested discovery from the Caleasieu Parish District Attorney's Office. Accordingly, defense counsel received the following discovery on these respective dates. April 12, 2018 — State’s Response to Defendant's Motion for Discovery: * Bill of Information + Rap Sheet—Joey Julian 19th JDC—Bill of Information Screening Action Form—Lake Charles Police Department Affidavit for Arrest Warrant Arrest Warrant Bail Order LCPD Offense Report CAD eall Information LCPD NCIC form LCPD Property Submittal Form Handwritten Victim/ Witness Statement—Zavier Rubit Handwritten Victim/ Witness Statement—Mike McCauley Handwritten Victim, Witness Statement—Timothy Guiden Handwritten Victim/ Witness Statement— Elizabeth Jean Heurtevant Handwritten Victim Witness Statement—Dejon Nicole Lane Handwritten Victim/ Witness Statement—Sadie Batchelor Request for Formal Prosecution Criminal Intelligence Alert Bulletin— (shooting suspect, Joey Julian) Page 1 of 18+ LCPD Permission for Search and Seizure (Tiffany Robinson—06 Hyundai Sonata) LCPD Weapon Identification LCPD—Consent to Search (Black Samsung Android, Tiffany Robinson) Pictures of text message thread Search Warrant—955 Seneca Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70805 LCPD Photographic Line Up Joey Julian— Facebook page LA Justice Network Inquiry —Joey Julian LCPD Affidavit for Search Warrant, Search Warrant and Return— Verizon Wireless (225-364-7303) TLOxp People—Joey Julian Christus St. Patrick Hospital Records—Emest Samuel Miller LCPD— Miranda Rights Form (Sidney Earl Poray Jr) LCPF Weapons Identification LCPD Voluntary Consent to Submission of Photography, Fingerprinting, or Bodily Substance (Sidney Earl Poray Jr) License (Sidney Earl Poray Jr) License plate Picture (245217) Information on License Plate & photos LA Justice Network Inquiry — Melissa Wilkinson Handwritten Victim/ Witness Statement —Sidney Earl Poray Verizon—Historical Call Detail w/ Cell Sites Explanation Form Photo of map of Welsh Photo of map of Crowley Photo of map of Henderson Picture of text message from Joey Julian Call Log (calls from Joey Julian) Apache Safety meeting attendance Autopsy Report—Ernest Miller Lab Report (shell casings, Swab of Joey Julian, blue jean pants, belt, blood of Ernest Miller) CV of Monica Qual Disc containing 911 recording Disc C. Shan Statement Disc of McDonalds video Disc of Kevin Meyer statement Disc of Weenum Statement Disc of Photos of the scene Disc of photos of the victim at CRCO Disc of photos of suspect Disc of photos of scene/ vehicle item 17 Disc of Howard Johnson video Disc of crime scene video November 2, 2018 —State’s First Supplemental Answer to Discovery: * The certified prior convictions from the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana, Docket No. 01-02-0591 + The certified prior convictions from the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana, Docket No. 10-13-0456 February 7, 2019 ~ State’s Second Supplemental Answer to Discovery: + Lake Charles Police Department Detective Supplemental Report, Complaint No 17-11169 February 14, 2019 - State’s Third Supplemental Answer to Discovery: St. Martin 16th Judicial District Court Uniform DWI arrest citation Page 2 of 18June 6, 2019 - State’s Fourth Supplemental Answer to Discovery: * (1) DVD containing the statement of Joey Julian + (1) DVD containing the statement of Tiffany Robinson + (1) DVD containing the statement of Sidney Poray + (1) DVD containing the statement of Darrell Nora * (1) CD containing photos of the victim at the Calcasieu Parish Coroner's Office + (2) photo copy of the Rough sketch of the scene + (1) CD containing the Emergency 911 call recording June 12, 2019 ~ State’s Fifth Supplemental Answer to Discovery: * (1) CD containing photos taken of the victim at the CPCO + A letter from the State of Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Public Safety Services 3. Upon reviewing the aforementioned discovery provided by the State, defense counsel noticed that some key items requested in discovery were not provided. For instance, defense counsel learned from the offense reports that numerous officers/ units responded to the alleged incident and were involved with the initial investigation and arrest of Mr, Julian. Still, in the discovery provided by the State, defense counsel was not provided with any dash cam or body camera videos from any of these officers or police units. Further, after reviewing the discovery at the time, defense counsel also noted that none of the notes allegedly taken by the detectives during the investigation had been provided nor any explanation for any missing video. Of note is that according to offense reports, several key witnesses were questioned at the scene, said interviews which should have been recorded via dash cam and/or body camera video. 4. For these reasons, on June 18, 2019, defense counsel filed a Motion to Compel Production of All Exculpatory Evidence and Favorable Information with Incorporated Memorandum (hereinafter “Motion to Compel”) requesting specific items and information relating to discovery that had not been provided—some twenty-five (25) different requests. A copy of defense counsel's Motion to Compel is attached hereto as “Exhibit B’. Page 3 0f 185. Noteworthy is defense counsel's representations in the Motion to Compel regarding its belief at the time that the State was withholding exculpatory information. Consider the following from defense counsel's Motion to Compel: “In the process of preparing for trial and reviewing all of the discovery provided by the State, defense counsel has come to believe that the State is withholding information (documents, videos, notes, memoranda, etc.), all of which the defense believes to be highly exculpatory and favorable to the defense. The following are but a few examples of favorable/exculpatory information which the defense has reason to believe exists but to date has yet to be disclosed by the State: Defense counsel has yet to receive any criminal arrest and/or conviction records for any of the prosecution's witnesses; Note: It is believed that several of the State's key witnesses have criminal arrests and convictions, however the State has not provided ANY information regarding these individuals criminal history—no records whatsoever. Defense counsel has yet to receive any criminal history information for the alleged victim; Note: It is also believed that there is substantial exculpatory information in the possession or knowledge of the State in this case regarding the alleged victim's criminal history/violent past. Still, no information whatsoever has been provided with respect to this exculpatory and material information, all of which is in the possession and control of the State. Defense counsel has yet to receive copies of any dash cam videos from any of the officers’ units who responded to the scene of the alleged crime, this despite numerous police officers responding to the scene in marked units outfitted with cameras. Note: Reports from the scene suggest several eyewitnesses were questioned by police officers in front of their units. As well, several eyewitnesses were even transported to the station by officers in their units for additional statements. Furthermore, based on the contents of the reports from the scene, this information would be highly exculpatory and favorable to the defense. Defense counsel has yet to receive copies of all statements collected by law enforcement in the case, Note: Reports suggest one of the State’s key witnesses, Tiffany Robinson, was questioned numerous times at the scene as well as multiple times after being brought to the station. Defense counsel believes all of these statements were recorded but has received only one video recorded statement of Ms. Robinson. Further, if these statements were recorded and were lost, defense counsel has yet to receive notification of same, which in and of itself would also be exculpatory and favorable to the defense as Page 4 of 18same could be used to impeach the officers as to the sloppiness of their investigation/ failure to preserve key evidence. + Defense counsel has yet to receive certain notes taken contemporancously by detectives while questioning witnesses and investigating the case. Note: Reports suggest that at least one detective kept contemporaneous notes while questioning witnesses and investigating the alleged crime scene. Likewise, one of the witnesses who was questioned by this detective appears to have provided police with differing accounts of the alleged altercation. Any notes from this interview, together with any audio or visual recording of same would thus contain extremely relevant and exculpatory information. However, these notes as well as any audio of video of same have not yet been produced to defense counsel the State. 3 As a result of the State's failure to provide the above referenced exculpatory /favorable information, including in those instances where necessary that said evidence has been lost or deleted, the defense believes it is likely the State has failed to provide or is refusing to provide additional exculpatory information with their possession, custody or control in this case.” (See Exhibit B). 6 In any event, a hearing on defense counsel’s motion was then held on June 20% and 21:t, 2019 wherein this Court went one by one through each of defense counsel's requests and either granted the request and thus ordered the State to comply with the request or denied the request. In the end, the State was ordered to comply with a substantial number of defense counsel's requests. A copy of the transcript from the hearing on June 20 and 21*, 2019 is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. et Of note also is that during that hearing, the defense was informed by the State that it was aware that numerous videos had been destroyed by the City of Lake Charles Police Department. For instance, on June 21, 2019, the State furnished defense counsel with emails from the Lake Charles Police Department (hereinafter “LCPD") indicating that all of the video footage from the officers’ units and body cameras had been purged/destroyed. A copy of the emails is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” en globo. Page 5 of 18Needless to say, this confirmed defense counsel's previous suspicions as articulated in its Motion to Compel (Exhibit B) regarding the State's failure to produce any dash cam or body camera footage or any explanation of same. Likewise, apparently ALL OF THIS VIDEO had been destroyed. What's worse, had defense counsel not filed the Motion to Compel and had a hearing on same not been ordered by this Court, defense counsel would likely have never been told about the destruction of this evidence by the State. On the contrary, prior to the hearing on June 20, 2019, the State was pushing forward with trial despite not having disclosed any of this exculpatory information to the defense. It should be noted that the trial in this matter was set for June 17, 2019. The defense, based upon the State's failure to comply with their discovery and Brady obligations, was forced to file a Motion to Continue the trial on that same date. A copy of the Motion to Continue is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”. However, the trial ‘was not continued until June 21, 2019. 8. Whatever the case, in response to several of this Court’s orders made over the course of the hearing on June 20% and 21*, the State sought writs to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. 9 In the meantime, in an effort to obtain more information on the missing videos, defense counsel filed a Motion for Additional Discovery and Inspection/ Compel Production of Exculpatory Evidence and a Motion for Additional Discovery and Inspection/Motion for Production of Exculpatory Evidence on July 12, 2019. Defense counsel also issued subpoenas to the Louisiana State Police for additional video and information associated with the traffic stop of the defendant. A copy of the motions and subpoena are attached hereto as “Exhibit F” en globo. This Court then set the motions for hearing for July 18, 2019; however, the hearing was subsequently continued and re-fixed for September 23, 2019, Page 6 of 1810. At the hearing on September 23, 2019, defense counsel received the State's Sixth Supplemental Answer to Discovery which included the following: An additional statement from Tiffany Robinson Watchguard Report Trooper Latiolais’ personnel records; and A chart indicating which LCPD officers were involved in the case and if they had a unit with a dashcam and/or were wearing a body camera on the date in question. 1. A copy of the transcript from the hearing on September 23, 2019 is attached hereto as “Exhibit G”, 12. With respect to the LCPD dash cam and body camera videos from some fifteen (15) units and twenty-five (25) police officers, at the hearing on September 23, 2019, we learned that three days after the previous hearing on June 20 and 21%, the LCPD started deleting some 159,000 videos—dash cam and body camera videos that were supposed to have been purged pursuant to the thirteen (13) month retention policy but that had not been purged due to a malfunction. That is, apparently three (3) days after we had a hearing wherein we were requesting videos from the officers and units who responded to the scene of the alleged crime, during which the State acknowledged all of the videos had been purged, the LCPD then three (3) days later began manually deleting 159,000 old videos which had not been previously purged. Shockingly, the LCPD acknowledged that some of these videos could have been ones from the night in question. (See Transcript, Exhibit G). Additionally, after reviewing the discovery provided on September 23, 2019, there are still inconsistencies regarding the existence and/or whereabouts of the missing video footage. The previous LCPD emails (Exhibit D en globo) indicate that on June 20, 2019, the IT division researched all the unit numbers and officers in Watchguard and verified that there were no videos in the system that weren't purged. However, the Watchguard report provided to defense counsel indicates that on June 24, Page 7 of 182019, a technician upgraded the LCPD’s Watchguard system because none of the videos were purging and there was a total of 159,000 videos in que waiting to be purged (Exhibit H). This doesn’t make any sense. Likewise, defense counsel is still waiting for the LCPD to provide a log of those instances where videos were deleted by certain administrators at the LCPD. This court ordered the LCPD to provide this information ‘which to date has not been provided by the LCPD. 13. With respect to video from the Louisiana State Police, in a letter provided to defense counsel on June 12, 2019, the arresting officer, Trooper Latiolais, indicated that no video was available from the stop and subsequent arrest of Mr. Julian for citation number 17408B015 (Exhibit 1). However, Trooper Latiolais indicated on the actual citation, issued on the date of the stop—November 8, 2017—that video did exist and was logged under Video Number #2599-1-17-20 (Exhibit J). Regardless, at the hearing on September 23, 2019, Trooper Latiolais indicated that there was a potential recording and that he could not recall any video problems around that time (Exhibit G, pg. 52-53). He also testified that when you have video problems, you notify the desk and he testified that he didn’t notify the front desk. Most important, he testified he had no reason to believe his video camera wasn’t working on the day in question. (Exhibit G, pg. 54). He also testified that everything was in place to have a video provided. Id. He also testified that to his knowledge, everything was in working order. Id. Consider the following: LSP Counsel: ‘And, to your knowledge, your camera was in working order? TPR. Latiolais: To my knowledge, it was. Yes, ma’am. LSP Counsel: Would you have any reason to have intentionally tampered with the recording in this situation? TPR. Latiolais: No, ma’am. LSP Counsel: And did you check your—do you recall checking your dash camera to determine whether it was working that date? TPR. Latiolais: I do check it on each—the beginning of each shift, yes, ma‘am. Page 8 of 18LSP Counsel: And to your knowledge, it was working? TPR. Latiolais: It was working correctly. Yes, ma’am. (Exhibit G, Pg. 55). Later during the hearing, it was agreed that the State would turn over the actual disk Trooper Latiolais is referring to— the disk from the day in question. Te ‘Thereafter, on October 3, 2019, defense counsel finally received the State's Response to Motion for Additional Discovery and Inspection/Compel Production of Exculpatory Evidence — this is that discovery previously ordered by this Court during the hearing on June 20% and 21%. The State's Response to Motion for Additional Discovery and Inspection/Compel Production of Exculpatory Evidence included the following attachments: Victim's criminal history LSP Internal Affairs Records LCPD Officer Notes Watchguard Security Report 15, Next, defense counsel received additional discovery from the Louisiana State Police via letters dated October 1, 2019 and October 7, 2019. 16. Defense counsel is still in the process of reviewing all of this additional discovery. Still, let defense counsel be clear—from defense counsel's initial review, there is additional exculpatory evidence the State has failed to disclose. Additionally, as this Court is now aware, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal upheld all but one of this Court's previous rulings with respect to the information requested in defense counsel's ‘Motion to Compel and the State has yet to fully comply with this Court's ruling. Likewise, defense counsel has received no personnel records on any of the LCPD officers involved in this case. A copy of the Third Circuit's ruling is attached hereto as “Exhibit K” Page 9 of 18Regardless, with respect to the State’s actions to date, the following is clear: A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF VIDEO EVIDENCE, BOTH BODY CAMERA AND DASH CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM_SOME TWENTY-FIVE (25) OFFICERS AND FIFTEEN (15) DIFFERENT UNITS, EVIDENCE BOTH MATERIAL AND EXCULPATORY, HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY DESTROYED—THIS DESPITE POLICY CLEARLY CALLING FOR ITS STORAGE AND PRESERVATION. Some twenty-five (25) officers and some fifteen (15) different police units responded to this alleged murder scene, each unit with a dash camera unit and the vast majority of officers equipped with functioning body cameras. Thus, some forty (40) video cameras were rolling at the time and numerous witnesses were questioned in front of those cameras. Likewise, LCPD Policy called for any and all interaction with the public to be videoed and tagged as evidence. Still, how many of these videos were tagged as evidence per LCPD policy? Zero. How many videos were saved as evidence? Zero. How much of this video was turned over to defense counsel? Zero 17. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal acknowledged this destruction in its recent ruling upholding this Court's ruling form June 20, 2019 wherein the Third Circuit stated in pertinent part: “...the information before this court shows multiple video recordings of law enforcement interviewing witnesses have already been destroyed.” 18, Just as the Third Circuit acknowledged in its opinion that additional discovery requested by the defense was warranted, so to must this Court acknowledge that a remedy is necessary considering the circumstances of this specific case. As such, the only issue left to be resolved is what remedy will be afforded this defendant given the State's intentional destruction of material and exculpatory evidence—evidence that Page 10 of 18should have been available to Mr. Julian for use in his defense at trial, Defense counsel suggests a very simple and very modest two-part remedy. First, at the outset of the case the Jury should be given the following admonishment: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, after the alleged homicide in this case was reported, twenty-five (25) officers from the LCPD responded and numerous witnesses were questioned at the scene as part of the investigation. While LCPD policy called for all body camera footage and dash cam footage to be tagged and saved as evidence, none of the officers in this case tagged their video as evidence and as a result all of this evidence was deleted. In total, there were fifteen (15) dash cam videos and twenty-five (25) body camera videos destroyed by the LCP.” Next, defense counsel suggests the following admonishment be given prior to testimony from any officer whose dashcam or bodycam video was destroyed: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this officer had a dash cam video and/or body camera video on the night of the alleged incident and since that video was not tagged as evidence per LCPD policy, it was destroyed.” Finally, defense counsel suggests the following instruction be included in the jury instructions: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you heard me at the outset of this trial make the following admonishment: “After the alleged homicide in this case was reported, twenty (25) officers from the LCPD responded and several witnesses were questioned at the scene as part of the investigation. While LCPD policy called for all body camera footage and dash cam footage to be tagged and saved as evidence, none of the officers in this case tagged their video as evidence and as a result all of this evidence was deleted. In total, there were fifteen (15) dash cam videos and twenty-five (25) body camera videos destroyed by the LCPD.” Page 11 of 18Now, with respect to these videos, I now instruct you that you are to presume that had those videos been produced, they would have been detrimental to the State’s case.” 19. The defendant must be afforded a sufficient remedy in light of the fact that material and exculpatory evidence that existed, that should have been provided to the defendant, and that should have been available to the defendant for use in his defense at trial was intentionally destroyed. Likewise, informing the Jury of what has occurred here with respect to the destruction of evidence and affording the defendant an appropriate adverse presumption is the least this Court should do to even the scales. The State must not be allowed simply to confess this information pre-trial and proceed to trial without consequence. Remember, the State did not even confess this information voluntarily —only after being caught did they admit that all of this video was destroyed. To that end, the law is clear—this Court has authority to enter any order with respect to discovery violations as may be appropriate. LAW AND ARGUMENT 20. The pertinent US. Supreme Court cases on destruction of evidence are as follows Brady v. Maryland 373 US. 83- Held that the prosecution must produce on request any evidence that is material to the issue of guilt. California v. Trombetta 467 U.S. 479- Held that if evidence had exculpatory value that was apparent at the time it was destroyed, then that destruction constitutes a violation of due process. Arizona v. Youngblood 488 US. 51- Held that when evidence “potentially useful”, but not clearly exculpatory, due process violated only if the evidence was destroyed in bad faith. 2. The new information received on September 24, 2019 bolsters the fact that the discovery missing in this case would have been highly exculpatory and favorable to the defense, There were a total of twenty-seven (27) units and thirty-three (33) officers Page 12 of 18involved with the initial investigation of Mr. Julian. Reports from the scene suggest several eyewitnesses were questioned by the LCPD officers in front of their units, Additionally, many of those eyewitnesses were transported to the LCPD in the officers’ units for additional statements. According to the discovery, fifteen (15) units and twenty-five (25) officers had video footage relevant to this case at some point prior to being destroyed. Furthermore, based on the contents of the reports from the scene, this information would be highly exculpatory and favorable to the defense. The LCPD incident report indicates that one of the State's key witnesses, Tiffany Robinson, was questioned multiple times at the scene and at the police station. During those interviews, Ms. Robinson told officers that she was bringing the alleged victim, Ernest Miller, to take a drug test when a verbal argument ensued between Mr. Julian and Mr, Miller in her vehicle. However, the State’s Sixth Supplemental Answer to Discovery states the following: “The State met with Tiffany Robinson prior to the last trial date. When interviewing Tiffany, she stated everyone in the vehicle had been drinking and not going to take a drug test.” Accordingly, the State’s key witness admitted that she lied to officers about important facts of this case; yet defense counsel is without video of her initial statements wherein she first lies to the police. 2 *Spoliation of the evidence" is a term used to refer to intentional destruction of evidence for the purpose of preventing an opposing party from using the evidence. Slate v. Crossley, 48,149 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/26/13), 117 So.3d 585. If spoliation is established, there is a presumption that the evidence would have been detrimental to the destroying party's case. Id. However, if the destruction is adequately explained, the presumption does not apply. Id. "In criminal cases, an appellant is not deprived of his due process rights based on the state's failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidentiary material unless bad faith is demonstrated." State v. Goosby, 47,772, pp. 13-14 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/6/13), 111 So.3d 494, 503, writ denied, 13-760 (La. 11/1/13), 125 So.3d Page 13 of 18418, 2013 La. LEXIS 2472. See also Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 $.Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed, 2d 281 (1988). 2B. Under the totality of the factual circumstances and then applying the case-law analysis above, it is clear that the audio and video was not properly preserved—this despite the fact that it is the policy of the LCPD and Louisiana State Police to record all interactions with the public, Regardless, the missing audio and video in this case would have been critical to the defense's case in order to refute the State's allegations regarding the defendant's state of mind. The video and audio would also have allowed defense counsel to more effectively cross-examine the police officers in this case. Additionally, this video would also show the officers’ interaction with the defendant who they allege was intoxicated. This evidence would also directly relate to the new allegations raised by Tiffany Robinson in her new statement—that everyone was drinking. All of this is gone with the omitted audio and video. Instead, the jury will be forced to rely NOT on video evidence but on the testimony alone of officers who recorded this information and then allowed same to be intentionally destroyed. For these same reasons, the Jury should be properly informed as to what evidence existed initially in this case. Further, the defendant should, at a minimum, be afforded an adverse presumption at trial based on spoliation of the evidence—namely, that had the video evidence been produced, it would have been detrimental to the State’s case. Under no circumstances should the defendant be forced to defend his case without the benefit of the exculpatory and/or material evidence intentionally destroyed by the police AND without any remedy at law given the State’s destruction of said evidence. m4. Finally, La. CCP. Art. 729.5(A) "Failure to Comply; Sanctions” states as follows: A. Ifat any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this Chapter or with an order issued pursuant to this Chapter, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, order a mistrial on motion of the defendant, Page 14 of 18prohibit the party from introducing into evidence the subject matter not disclosed, or enter such other order, other than dismissal, as may be appropriate. 25. Given the procedural posture of this case, under no circumstances should the State be permitted to proceed to trial with the testimony of the officers alone after the LCPD and Louisiana State Police admitted to not preserving the best evidence in the case, Again, this Court must not forget, the State only admitted to the destruction of the evidence after being pressed by the defense (i.e. after the defense filed its Motion to Compel—Exhibit B). Accordingly, to allow the State to admit pretrial that a massive amount of material and exculpatory evidence was destroyed, then allow the State to proceed to trial without any consequence and with no remedy being afforded the defendant would be a gross miscarriage of justice to say the least. More, it would guarantee an unfair trial. 26. While there is no way for this Court to measure the damage caused this defendant and his defense by the destruction of all of this material and exculpatory video evidence, this Court must afford the defendant an appropriate remedy under the circumstances. To that end, acknowledging the destruction and affording the defendant an appropriate legal presumption is the least that should be done to try and even the scales. WHEREFORE, as a discovery sanction, defendant prays that the Jury be admonished as described herein and for an adverse presumption regarding the destroyed video to be reflected in the jury instructions. Respectfully submitted, THE JOHNSON FIRM 910 Ford Street | P.O. Box 849 Page 15 of 18TODD CLEMONS & ASSOCIATES TODD S. CLEMONS, #18168 JANET D. MADISON, #37495 1740 Ryan Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 (837) 477-0000/Telephone (637) 477-4580/ Facsimile Attorneys for Joey julian Page 16 of 18STATE OF LOUISIANA. : 14% JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VS. NO.: 21573-17 : PARISH OF CALCASIEU JOEY JULIAN : STATE OF LOUISIANA FILED: DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT ORDER Considering the foregoing: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing be set for the 4 day of November, 2019, at 9:00 A.M. for purposes of determining the merits of the Defendant's Motion for Discovery Sanctions Pursuant to La. C.Cr-P. Art. 729.5(A). THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on this day of October, 2019. HONORABLE JUDGE RONALD F. WARE PLEASE SERVE: Cynthia Killingsworth, Assistant District Attorney; and Jason Brown, Assistant District Attorney Calcasieu Parish District Attorney's Office Page 17 of 18CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Motion for Discovery Sanctions Pursuant To L.A. C.C.R.P. Art. 729.5 (A) with Incorporated Memorandum and accompanying Order have been served upon: Cindy Killingsworth, Assistant District Attomey Jason Brown, Assistant District Attorney Calcasieu Parish District Attorney's Office 901 Lakeshore Drive Lake Charles, LA 70601 2 oT via email this 28 day of October, 2019, ADAM P. JOHNSON Page 18 of 18