Blog/News

In an impressive professional milestone, criminal defense attorney Stephen Hébert has been named one of New Orleans Magazine's "Top Lawyers" in the field of criminal defense for the ninth time. This recognition not only highlights Hébert's expertise and dedication but also underscores his consistent reputation as one of the city’s leading legal advocates in criminal law.

Hébert has built a distinguished career as a criminal defense attorney, earning a reputation for his skillful defense and dedication to clients' rights. Over the years, he has successfully represented numerous clients in a variety of complex criminal cases, from misdemeanors to serious felony charges. His approach to each case is characterized by meticulous preparation, thorough investigation, and unwavering commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for his clients. This accolade is a testament to Hébert's continued excellence in a challenging and evolving area of law.

Each year, New Orleans Magazine partners with a national research organization, often utilizing peer-reviewed surveys to compile a list of the area’s top attorneys across various fields of law. Here’s a look at how the selection process typically works:

 

1. Peer Nomination: The process starts with peer nominations, where licensed attorneys in the region nominate colleagues they believe exemplify professional excellence in their respective fields. These nominations reflect the trust and respect of fellow attorneys, a crucial component in identifying leaders within each practice area.

2. Evaluation and Research: Following the initial nominations, nominees undergo an evaluation by a research team. This involves reviewing their experience, case outcomes, client satisfaction, and adherence to professional standards. The research team considers various metrics, ensuring that each selected lawyer has made a significant impact within their field and maintains a positive reputation among peers and clients alike.

3. Final Selection: Once the evaluations are complete, the magazine publishes its final list, honoring attorneys who have demonstrated excellence in their practice areas. The list includes attorneys across multiple specialties, with criminal defense being one of the most competitive categories.

Being named to this list is a distinguished accomplishment for any attorney. However, achieving this honor for nine years highlights Hébert’s consistency and continued leadership in criminal defense. Such repeated recognition suggests a deep trust within the legal community and reinforces his reputation for outstanding advocacy and professionalism.

Beyond his legal victories, Hébert’s dedication to his clients and the broader community further sets him apart. In addition to his work in the courtroom, he has made substantial contributions to legal education and public service, striving to make a positive impact on the legal landscape in New Orleans.

Stephen Hébert's inclusion among New Orleans Magazine's Top Lawyers for the ninth year in criminal defense is a well-deserved recognition of his exceptional skills, dedication to justice, and the trust he has earned from peers and clients alike. As he continues his practice, Hébert remains a crucial asset to the New Orleans legal community, embodying the highest standards of his profession.

 

 

A "no contest" plea, also known as a "nolo contendere" plea, under Louisiana law, allows a defendant to accept conviction without admitting guilt. It has the same legal effect as a guilty plea in criminal court, but the defendant does not admit to the criminal act itself. This plea can be beneficial in certain cases, especially if the defendant wishes to avoid potential civil liability that might arise from admitting guilt.

Here’s how it works under Louisiana law:

1. Criminal Court: When a defendant pleads no contest, the court treats it the same as a guilty plea in terms of sentencing. The judge can impose penalties such as fines, probation, or imprisonment, just as they would with a guilty plea.

2. Civil Liability: One of the main advantages of a no contest plea is that it usually cannot be used as evidence of liability in a subsequent civil lawsuit. For example, if someone pleads no contest to a criminal charge related to a car accident, this plea generally cannot be used against them in a civil suit for damages arising from the accident.

3. Record and Consequences: A no contest plea results in a conviction on the defendant’s criminal record, and it may have the same long-term consequences as a guilty plea, such as affecting future employment, professional licensing, or firearm rights.

4. Discretion of the Judge: The judge must accept a no contest plea, and in some cases, they may reject it if they believe it's not in the interests of justice.

It's important to discuss the implications of a no contest plea with legal counsel, as it may have specific consequences depending on the charges and the circumstances of the case.

 

 

An Alford plea is a type of guilty plea in criminal law where a defendant does not admit to the criminal act but acknowledges that the prosecution has enough evidence to likely secure a conviction. The plea allows the defendant to maintain their innocence while still accepting the legal consequences of a guilty plea. It is named after the 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

 

In an Alford plea:

 

1. The defendant asserts their innocence or does not admit guilt.
2. The defendant agrees to be treated as guilty for sentencing purposes.
3. The court must determine that the plea is made knowingly, voluntarily, and based on a strong factual basis for guilt.

 

The plea is typically used when a defendant wishes to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence if convicted at trial. It allows them to accept a plea bargain while not fully admitting to the crime. Despite maintaining innocence, the defendant is convicted and punished just as if they had entered a standard guilty plea.

 

In Louisiana, criminal negligence is defined under Louisiana Revised Statutes (La. R.S. 14:12). It occurs when there is such a disregard of the interest of others that the conduct of the offender amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.

 

Key Points:

• Gross Deviation: Criminal negligence involves a significant departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in a similar situation.
• Standard of Care: It is measured by what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
• Disregard for Safety: The negligence must show a disregard for the safety or welfare of others, which leads to harm or poses a significant risk of harm.

 

Criminal negligence can be a component in various crimes, such as negligent homicide or negligent injuring, where the negligent act results in death or bodily harm. The penalties for crimes involving criminal negligence can vary, but they often involve fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity of the offense and its consequences.

 

 

Prosecutorial immunity, also known as absolute immunity, is a legal doctrine that protects prosecutors from being held personally liable for their actions in the course of performing their duties. This immunity is intended to ensure that prosecutors can carry out their responsibilities effectively without fear of being sued for actions taken as part of their official duties.

 

Prosecutorial immunity typically applies to actions such as initiating prosecutions, presenting evidence in court, making arguments, and exercising discretion in deciding how to handle a case. This immunity is based on the principle that prosecutors need to have the freedom to make decisions in the pursuit of justice without the threat of lawsuits hindering their work.

 

It's important to note that prosecutorial immunity is not unlimited. Prosecutors can still be held accountable for actions that are outside the scope of their official duties, such as engaging in illegal conduct or knowingly presenting false evidence in court.

 

Prosecutorial immunity is a complex legal concept that varies by jurisdiction, and the specific scope and limitations of immunity may differ based on the laws and court rulings in a particular jurisdiction.

 

Expungement in Louisiana criminal law refers to the process of sealing or erasing a person's criminal record from public view. This legal procedure allows individuals to have their criminal records cleared, meaning that the records are not accessible to the general public, although certain law enforcement agencies and other specified entities may still access them.

Key Points about Expungement in Louisiana:

1. Eligibility:

   • Misdemeanors: Generally, individuals can seek expungement for misdemeanor convictions if it has been at least five years since the completion of their sentence, including probation or parole, and they have not been convicted of any other crimes during that period.
   • Felonies: Felony convictions are more challenging to expunge. Typically, expungement is available only for non-violent felony offenses. It must have been at least ten years since the completion of the sentence, and the individual must not have been convicted of any other crimes during that period.
   • Arrests without Convictions: If a person was arrested but not convicted, or if the charges were dismissed or resulted in acquittal, they might be eligible for expungement.

2. Ineligibility:

   • Certain crimes, such as violent offenses, sex crimes, and crimes involving minors, are generally not eligible for expungement.
   • Multiple convictions can complicate the eligibility for expungement.

3. Procedure:

   • Filing a Petition: The individual must file a petition for expungement in the court where the conviction or arrest occurred.
   • Hearing: A hearing may be scheduled where the court will review the petition and determine if the expungement is warranted.
   • Costs: There are usually fees associated with filing for expungement, which can be substantial.

4. Effects:

   • Once an expungement is granted, the record is sealed, and the individual can legally state that they have not been arrested or convicted for the expunged offense.
   • However, the record is not destroyed and can be accessed by certain entities, such as law enforcement agencies, in specific circumstances.

5. Limitations:

   • Expungement does not restore firearm rights automatically.
   • Certain professional licensing boards and employers, especially in sensitive fields, may still have access to expunged records.

Legal Context:

Louisiana's expungement laws are outlined in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. The specific requirements and procedures can vary, and legal counsel is often recommended to navigate the complexities of the process.  Overall, expungement provides a means for individuals to move past their criminal records, potentially improving their employment prospects and social standing by ensuring that past offenses do not continually impede their future opportunities.

 

The right to compulsory process in the context of a criminal trial is a fundamental principle of the legal system, particularly in common law jurisdictions like the United States. It essentially grants the defendant the right to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence that may be favorable to their case. This right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the accused shall enjoy the right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." In practice, this means that if a defendant believes that certain witnesses or evidence could help exonerate them or weaken the prosecution's case, they have the right to request the court to compel those witnesses to testify or produce that evidence. The court must then issue subpoenas or orders to ensure that those witnesses appear in court and provide their testimony, or that the evidence is produced for examination. The right to compulsory process is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and protecting the defendant's rights to present a defense. Without this right, defendants could be unfairly deprived of evidence that could potentially prove their innocence or cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves in a criminal case. This means that a person cannot be forced to testify against themselves in court, and it also extends to other situations where self-incrimination might occur, such as during police interrogation. It's commonly referred to as the right against self-incrimination or the right to remain silent.

 

For an incriminating statement to be admissible at a criminal trial, it must meet certain legal standards. Here are some factors that determine admissibility:

 

1. Voluntariness: The statement must be given voluntarily, without coercion, duress, or undue influence. If the statement is obtained through coercion or threats, it may be deemed involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

2. Miranda Rights: If the statement was made during custodial interrogation, the defendant must have been informed of their Miranda rights (the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc.). If the defendant was not properly advised of these rights and waived them, any statements they make may be excluded from trial.

3. Waiver of Rights: The defendant must have knowingly and voluntarily waived their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and other applicable rights before making the statement.

4. Understanding: The defendant must have had a sufficient understanding of the nature of their statement and the consequences of making it. If the defendant was mentally incapacitated, intoxicated, or otherwise unable to understand the implications of their statement, it may be deemed inadmissible.

5. Relevance: The statement must be relevant to the case at hand. Irrelevant or extraneous statements may be excluded from trial.

6. Hearsay: If the statement is considered hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted), it may be subject to exclusion unless it falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

 

Ultimately, admissibility of incriminating statements is determined by the judge based on the circumstances surrounding the statement and its compliance with legal standards.

 

The right to counsel in connection with criminal cases is a fundamental legal principle that ensures individuals accused of a crime have the right to be represented by an attorney during various stages of the criminal justice process. This right is often considered a fundamental human right and is recognized in many legal systems around the world, including the United States where it is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Key aspects of the right to counsel include:

1. Legal Representation: Individuals accused of a crime have the right to have an attorney represent them at various stages of the criminal proceedings. This includes during police interrogations, pretrial hearings, arraignments, trials, and any other critical stages of the legal process.

2. Access to Legal Advice: Defendants have the right to consult with an attorney for legal advice before making important decisions, such as whether to waive their right to remain silent or enter into a plea agreement.

3. Effective Assistance of Counsel: The right to counsel not only guarantees the presence of an attorney but also ensures that the legal representation is competent and effective. Defendants have the right to an attorney who provides adequate legal assistance.

4. Free Legal Representation for Indigent Defendants: In many legal systems, if a defendant cannot afford to hire a private attorney, the state is obligated to provide them with legal representation at no cost. This is to ensure that economic status does not impede the right to counsel.

5. Right to Self-Representation: While the right to counsel is a fundamental right, individuals also have the right to represent themselves in court. However, this is often discouraged due to the complexities of legal proceedings.

The right to counsel is essential to safeguard the fairness of criminal trials and to protect individuals from unjust prosecution. It ensures that defendants have a fair opportunity to present their defense, understand the charges against them, and navigate the complexities of the legal process.