Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill was indicted Thursday by an Orleans Parish grand jury on 16 felony counts tied to letters she sent New Orleans officials during the state’s fight over control of the Orleans Parish clerk of court’s office.
Murrill is facing eight counts of public intimidation and eight counts of malfeasance in office, according to Fox 8, which reported that bond was set at $400,000. The indictment stems from letters Murrill sent in May to New Orleans Mayor Helena Moreno, District Attorney Jason Williams, retired Judge Calvin Johnson and five members of the New Orleans City Council.
The case marks an extraordinary escalation in the ongoing political and legal fight between Republican state leaders in Baton Rouge and Democratic officials in New Orleans. But the indictment does not appear to turn on whether Murrill was right about the underlying clerk of court dispute. The Louisiana Supreme Court has already sided with the state on that question, ruling that Act 15 was a valid exercise of legislative power and did not create a vacancy for the City Council to fill.
Instead, the indictment centers on how Murrill used the power of her office to pressure local officials to comply.
In her May 13 letter to City Council President JP Morrell, Murrill warned that the council’s actions could trigger “serious consequences” under Louisiana’s usurper statutes, including possible forfeiture of his office. She wrote that Morrell and four other council members had “knowingly and intentionally” aided the usurpation of Chelsey Richard Napoleon’s office by voting to appoint Johnson as interim clerk and call a special election.
Murrill went further in the letter, warning that Morrell, four council members, the district attorney and the mayor had put their offices in jeopardy by recognizing Johnson’s authority. She also noted that Gov. Jeff Landry would have authority to fill vacancies created by those forfeitures.
In a separate letter to Moreno, Murrill made nearly identical warnings, telling the newly elected mayor that her support for the council’s actions could trigger possible forfeiture of her own office. She urged Moreno to retract support for Johnson’s appointment and take no further action recognizing what Murrill called a fictional office.
Those letters now sit at the center of the criminal case against the state’s top legal officer.
Louisiana’s public intimidation statute prohibits the use of violence, force, extortionate threats or true threats against public officers, jurors, witnesses, voters, election officials and certain other people with the intent to influence their conduct in relation to their duties. A conviction carries a sentence of up to five years in prison, with or without hard labor.
The malfeasance in office statute applies to public officers or employees who intentionally fail to perform a lawfully required duty, intentionally perform such a duty in an unlawful manner, or knowingly permit someone under their authority to do so. A conviction carries up to 10 years in prison, with or without hard labor, and a fine of up to $5,000.
The clerk fight began after Calvin Duncan, a former wrongfully convicted man turned attorney and legal reform advocate, was elected Orleans Parish criminal clerk of court with 68% of the vote. Before Duncan could assume office, the Legislature passed Act 15, backed by Landry, abolishing the criminal clerk’s office and transferring its duties to the civil clerk of court, Chelsey Richard Napoleon.
New Orleans officials argued the law created a new consolidated clerk of court position and, therefore, a vacancy. The City Council appointed retired Judge Calvin Johnson as interim clerk and called a special election to fill the seat. Murrill rejected that argument and demanded that city officials reverse course.
The Louisiana Supreme Court later ruled that Act 15 did not create a new vacancy. In its majority opinion, the court held that the law simply expanded the civil clerk’s duties and renamed the office as clerk of court for Orleans Parish.
But the court’s ruling did not resolve the separate question now posed by the indictment: whether Murrill’s threats to remove elected local officials from office, and have the governor fill those seats, crossed from legal advocacy into criminal intimidation or official misconduct.
Gov. Landry responded to the indictment by promising to pardon Murrill “as fast as the law allows,” while calling the Orleans grand jury and court system a “kangaroo court.”
While that vow to pardon Murrill is politically explosive, according to Louisiana state law, the governor may pardon people convicted of state offenses upon recommendation of the Board of Pardons, but the state’s pardon process applies to convictions, not pending charges.
Moreno, one of the officials named in Murrill’s letters, issued a restrained statement after the indictment, saying the matter is now for the courts and that her focus remains on fulfilling the duties New Orleans voters elected her to carry out.
“My focus, as always, remains on fulfilling the responsibilities the people of New Orleans elected me to carry out,” Moreno said.
Special prosecutor Laurie White was more direct. Speaking after the indictment, White described the case as straightforward.
“We’re very interested in elected officials in New Orleans not being intimidated or threatened by letter or any other way,” White said.
Murrill previously defended the letters and said Wednesday that she had no direct knowledge of the grand jury inquiry before media reports surfaced. She has not been convicted of any crime, and the indictment only means a grand jury found probable cause for the charges to move forward.
Still, the indictment places Louisiana’s attorney general in an unprecedented position: the state’s chief legal officer is now a criminal defendant in a case built around her own written threats to local elected officials.
The legal fight will likely turn on whether Murrill’s letters were lawful warnings from the attorney general about the consequences of violating state law, or whether they were unlawful threats aimed at forcing New Orleans officials to abandon their policy decisions under threat of removal from office.
That distinction is now for an Orleans Parish criminal court to decide.