Stephen D. Hebert - Blog/News

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 constitutional right to a trial when accused of a crime is a fundamental aspect of due process and fairness within the legal system, particularly in jurisdictions influenced by common law principles. In the United States, this right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

This amendment guarantees several key components of the trial process:

Speedy and public trial: The accused has the right to have their case heard in a timely manner and in a public setting, allowing for transparency and accountability in the legal process.
Impartial jury: The accused has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers who are impartial and unbiased, ensuring fairness in the determination of guilt or innocence.
Informed of the nature and cause of the accusation: The accused must be informed of the specific charges against them and the basis for those charges, allowing them to adequately prepare a defense.
Confrontation: The accused has the right to confront witnesses who testify against them, meaning they can cross-examine these witnesses to challenge their testimony.
Compulsory process for obtaining witnesses: The accused has the right to compel witnesses to testify on their behalf through the issuance of subpoenas, ensuring they have the opportunity to present evidence in their defense.
Assistance of Counsel: The accused has the right to have the assistance of legal counsel for their defense, whether that counsel is retained privately or provided by the state if the accused cannot afford an attorney.

These rights are crucial protections designed to safeguard individuals accused of crimes and ensure that they receive a fair trial in accordance with principles of justice and the rule of law. They help to balance the power of the state with the rights of the individual, preventing abuses of authority and wrongful convictions.

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:

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Super Lawyers is a rating service that identifies outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas. The selection process involves a combination of peer nominations, evaluations, and independent research. Candidates are evaluated based on factors such as professional achievement, peer recognition, and other criteria specific to their practice areas.

The Super Lawyers list is published annually and is designed to provide a credible resource for individuals seeking legal representation. It is intended to showcase exceptional attorneys who have demonstrated a high level of professional achievement and peer recognition. Super Lawyers also publishes a separate Rising Stars list, which recognizes up-and-coming attorneys who are 40 years old or younger or who have been in practice for 10 years or less.

Being named to the Louisiana Super Lawyers list can be considered a significant accomplishment for attorneys. Inclusion in the Super Lawyers list is often viewed as a recognition of a lawyer's professional achievements, reputation, and expertise within their practice area. It signifies that the attorney has been identified through a rigorous selection process that involves peer nominations, evaluations, and independent research.

Stephen Hébert is a New Orleans based sole-practioner, defending clients in criminal matters across Louisiana. After working at the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal, the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office and a highly regarded commercial litigation firm, Hébert started his private practice in July 2010 and Super Lawyers quickly took note of Hébert’s outstanding abilities in criminal defense. Super Lawyers named Hébert a Rising Star in 2012 and 2013. In 2023, Hébert’s was named to Louisiana Super Lawyers for the tenth consecutive year (2015-2024). While criminal defense comprises most of his practice, Hébert's current practice areas additionally include general civil litigation and personal injury (plaintiff).

Under Louisiana criminal law, a Bill of Information is a formal charging document used in lieu of a grand jury indictment. It outlines the criminal charges against a defendant and provides details about the alleged offenses. This streamlined process is common for less serious offenses, and it allows prosecutors to bring charges without convening a grand jury. However, when the alleged offense carries a mandatory life sentence, the District Attorney must indict by grand jury.

The admissibility of character evidence at trial depends on the jurisdiction and the specific rules of evidence governing the proceedings. In many legal systems, including the United States, character evidence is generally subject to restrictions and may be admissible or inadmissible based on the purpose for which it is offered.

Character Evidence for Propensity: Generally, evidence of a person's character to prove that they acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion is not admissible. This is known as propensity evidence. For example, introducing evidence that a defendant has a propensity for violence to argue that they are more likely to have committed a violent act is typically not allowed.

Character Evidence for Other Purposes: However, there are exceptions. Character evidence may be admissible for purposes other than proving propensity.

For instance: Impeachment: Character evidence may be admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness. For example, if a witness's character for truthfulness is in question, evidence of their prior dishonesty may be admissible.

Motive, Intent, or Knowledge: Character evidence may be relevant to show a person's motive, intent, or knowledge in a particular situation.

Character Evidence in Specific Cases: In some cases, character evidence may be admissible as an exception. For instance, in a criminal case, the prosecution might be allowed to introduce evidence of the defendant's character if the defendant has first introduced evidence of their own good character.

Character Evidence in Civil Cases: The rules regarding character evidence may also vary in civil cases. In some instances, character evidence may be relevant to issues in a civil trial.

Rules of Evidence: The admissibility of character evidence is often governed by specific rules of evidence in each jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, the Federal Rules of Evidence and state-specific rules provide guidance on the admissibility of character evidence.

It's important to consult the specific rules of evidence applicable to the jurisdiction and type of case in question to determine the admissibility of character evidence in a particular situation.

There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule, which allow hearsay evidence to be admitted in court under certain circumstances. These exceptions vary by jurisdiction, but some of the common ones include:

Statements by Party-Opponents: Statements made by a party to the case (or their agents) can often be admitted as evidence against that party. This is based on the principle that a party cannot benefit from their own statements if those statements are detrimental to their case.
Excited Utterances: Statements made by a person who is under the influence of the excitement or shock caused by an event are typically considered reliable and admissible as hearsay exceptions. The idea is that the declarant's emotional state ensures the statement's trustworthiness.
Present Sense Impression: Statements describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant is perceiving it or immediately thereafter are admissible. This exception is based on the belief that such statements are more likely to be accurate.
Statements for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment: Statements made to medical professionals for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment are often admissible. This includes both past medical history and statements about the patient's current condition.
Business Records: Records maintained in the regular course of business, such as invoices, receipts, and employment records, can be admitted as evidence if they were created in a reliable and systematic manner.
Dying Declarations: Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die, and the statement concerns the cause or circumstances of their impending death, can be admitted. This exception is based on the assumption that individuals are unlikely to lie when facing imminent death.
Prior Inconsistent Statements: A prior statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with their current testimony can be introduced to impeach their credibility. However, it's typically not introduced as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the statement.
Admissions Against Interest: Statements made by a person that are against their own legal or financial interest can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule. This includes confessions and statements against one's proprietary or pecuniary interest.
Official Records and Public Documents: Government records, public documents, and records of vital statistics are generally admissible as exceptions to hearsay when properly authenticated.
Catch-All or Residual Exception: Some jurisdictions have a catch-all or residual hearsay exception that allows for the admission of hearsay evidence if it has guarantees of trustworthiness and is necessary for a fair trial. This is often subject to judicial discretion.

These are just some of the common exceptions to the hearsay rule, and their application can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried. Legal practitioners and judges carefully consider the rules of evidence and relevant case law when determining the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

Most people hope to not need them. But, when they do, they want the good ones on their side. To this end, New Orleans Magazine publishes an annual list of Top Lawyers; and, it, once again, named Stephen Hébert one of the top attorneys in criminal defense. The list was prepared by Detroit-based Professional Research Services.

Professional Research Services provided this explanation of its methodology: The voting was open to all licensed attorneys in New Orleans. They were asked which attorney, other than themselves, they would recommend in the New Orleans area. Each attorney was allowed to recommend up to three colleagues in each given legal specialty. Once the online nominations were complete, each nominee was carefully evaluated on the basis of the survey results, the legitimacy of their license and their current standing with the State Bar Association of Louisiana. Attorneys who received the highest number of votes in each specialty are reflected in the list.

This will be Hébert’s ninth appearance as a Top Lawyer. He previously appeared in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Hearsay evidence is a legal term that refers to an out-of-court statement or assertion made by someone other than the person testifying in court, which is offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In other words, it is a statement made by a person who is not testifying in the current legal proceeding but is being presented in court to prove that what was said in the statement is true.

Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court because it is considered less reliable than firsthand testimony. The rationale behind the hearsay rule is that when someone repeats what another person said, there is a greater likelihood of inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or dishonesty compared to when a witness testifies based on their own firsthand knowledge.

However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, and in certain circumstances, hearsay evidence may be admitted in court. These exceptions vary by jurisdiction but often include statements made by a party-opponent, statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, statements made under oath in a prior proceeding, and statements made in the regular course of business records, among others.

It's important to note that the rules regarding hearsay evidence can be complex, and their application may depend on the specific legal jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case. Attorneys and judges are responsible for determining whether hearsay evidence should be admitted or excluded in a particular legal proceeding based on the applicable laws and rules of evidence.

Blog/News

The Right to Compulsory Process

The Right to Trial

The 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent

The Right to Counsel

Hébert a Super Lawyer for 10th Consecutive Year

What is a Bill of Information?

Character Evidence

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

New Orleans Magazine: Hébert a Top Lawyer in Criminal Defense

The Hearsay Rule