Alexander v. Louisiana Petition for Certiorari Filed September 29, 1970, Certiorari Granted March 1, 1971

    APPENDIX

Supreme Court, U.S,
f i l e d  

------ 6EEU&. M?1

E. ROBERT SEAVER, CLERK

I&tpmt* GJmirt nf %  Ittitefc States
October Term, 1970

No. 5944

Claude Alexander, 

State of Louisiana,

Petitwner,

Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT 
OF LOUISIANA

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 1970 
CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 1, 1971



Bnprmt tour! of %  HUnxteb BUUb

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

Oc t o b er  T e r m , 1970

No. 5944

Cla u d e  A l e x a n d e r ,
Petitioner,

— v.—

S t a t e  o f  L o u isia n a ,
Respondent.

OF LOUISIANA

I N D E X
Page

Relevant Docket Entries _____________________________  _ 1

Members of Grand Jury ____________________________  3

Minutes of Grand Jury __________________________________  4

Indictment _________________________________________  g
Motion to Quash Indictment _____________________________  0

Exhibits Introduced at Hearing on Motion to Quash In­
dictment _______________________________________  7

Card for Juror (State’s Exhibit A) ___________________  7

Jury Questionnaire ___________________________________ g
Voter Registration Application ________________________  H
Certificate of Court Clerk _________________________  15

Second Certificate of Court Clerk ______________________  15

List of Jury Venire __________________________________ 10

Order on Defendants’ Bill of Exception No. 10 ___________  26



11 I N D E X

Page
Order Denying Motion to Quash Indictm ent________________ 27

Transcript of Testimony at Hearing on Motion to Quash 
Indictment ____________________________________________ _ 29

Testimony
Defendants’ Witnesses:

Eraste R. Landry—
Direct ____________________________________________  29

Oliver J .  LeBlanc—
Direct ____________________________________________  32

Eraste R. Landry—
Direct recalled _____________________________________ 38

Oliver J .  LeBlanc—
direct (recalled) __________________________________  40

Agnes Felix—
Direct ____________________________________________  62
Cross ________     63
Redirect ___________________________________________  65

Transcript of Testimony, Trial on Merits _________________  65
Hearing Outside Presence of Jury on Admissibility 

of Confession ______________________________________ 65
Trial Before Jury ___________________________________  67

Testimony
State’s Witnesses:

Shirley P ic a r d -
Direct ____________________________________________  67
Cross _____________________________________________  71
Redirect ___________________________________________  79
Recross ___________________________________________  81

Sidney Joseph Broussard, Jr.-—•
Direct ____________________________________________  83
Cross _____________________________________________  88
Redirect ___________________________________________  97
Recross _________________________________________ _  97

Anthony Navarre—
Direct ____________________________________________  98
Cross _____________________________________________  101
Redirect ___________________________________________  107
Recross ___________________________________________  108



I N D E X iii 

Page
Defendant’s W itness:

Claude Alexander—
Direct ____________________________________________  HO
Cross _____________________________________________  116
Redirect ________________________________ ___________  121

Court’s Ruling on Admissibility __________________________ 122

Defendant’s Witness:
Claude Alexander—

Cross ---------------------------------------------------------------------  127
Redirect ___________________________________________  136
Recross ___________________________________________  142
Redirect ___________________________________________  145

State’s Rebuttal Witnesses:
Shirley Picard—

Direct ____________________________________________  146
Cross ---------------------------------------------------------------------  150
Redirect ___________________________________________  157
Recross ___________________________________________  157
Redirect ___________________________________________  158

Sidney Joseph Broussard, Jr .—
Direct ____________________________________________  159
Cross _____________________________________________  161

Anthony N a v a rre -
Direct __________________________________________ _ 166
Cross _____________________________________________  168

Opinion of Supreme Court of Louisiana, McCaleb, J . ______  170

Order of Supreme Court of Louisiana Denying Rehearing,
May 4, 1970 ___________________________________________  181

Order of the Supreme Court of the United States, dated 
March 1, 1971, granting the motion for leave to proceed 
in forma pauperis and granting the petition for a writ 
of certiorari __________________________________________  181



15TH JUD ICIAL D ISTRICT COURT 
CRIMINAL DOCKET NUMBER 31132 

PARISH OF LA FA YETTE, LOUISIANA

1

S t a t e  o f  L o u isia n a  

Cla u d e  A l e x a n d e r

CHRONOLOGICAL IN DEX OF ALL DOCKET EN TRIES:

1967

SEPT. 15 

OCT. 13

NOV. 7

8
9

10

10

10

10

Indictment Returned by Grand Jury

Application to Admission to Bail and/or Pre­
liminary Hearing Filed on behalf of Claude 
Alexander

Request for Bills of Particulars (Claude Alex­
ander)

Motion to Quash Indictment (Claude Alexander)

Answers to Applications for Bill of Particulars

Motion for Severance filed on behalf of Lee Perry 
Pratt

Application for Bill of Particulars (Lee Perry 
Pratt)

Motion to Quash Indictment (Lee Perry Pratt) 

Exhibits Introduced on Motion to Quash

1968

JAN. 15 Motion to File Separate Indictments



2

1969

FE B . 6

6
6
6

10

Bill of Exception No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Claude 
Alexander)

Bill of Exception No. 10 (Claude Alexander)

Bill of Exception No. 1 (Lee Perry Pratt)

Bill of Exception No. 2 (Lee Perry Pratt)

Bills of Exception 1-2-3 (Claude Alexander)



3

L is t  o p  M e m b e r s  o f  Gran d  J u r y

GRAND JU R Y

Upon instruction from the Court, the Sheriff here 
called the names of the twenty (20) citizens selected by 
the Ju ry  Commission of the Parish of Lafayette, and 
summoned by the Sheriff to serve as Grand Jurors, if 
drawn as such, for the September, 1967 Criminal Term 
of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, in 
and for the Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana, to-wit:

1. Nolan Joseph Winters
3. A. J .  Szabo
5. Tom Brook Metcalfe
7. Bobby Joseph Richard
9. Freddie Lantier 

11. Adam William Duhon 
13. Robert Arthur Anderson 
15. Walter Frank Comeaux 
17. Glenn E. F. Oser 
19. Charles Carol Comeaux

2. Felix Henry Foreman, Jr .
4. John Ray wood LeBlanc
6. Paul Douglas Perkins
8. James Francis Lavergne

10. Harry Elton Delahoussaye 
12. Floyd Meaux 
14. Warren Trahan 
16. Arthur James Maloney, Sr. 
18. Ewell James Sonnier 
20. Ellzey J .  Terro

All answered to their names except:
1. Nolan Joseph Winters
2. Tom Brook Metcalfe
3. Harry Elton Delahoussaye

Excused by the Court 
Excused by the Court 
Excused by the Court

Whereupon, the remaining prospective Jurors were 
then sworn on their Voir Dire and then examined by the 
Court on their qualifications to serve as Grand Jurors, 
if  drawn. The Court found these remaining prospective 
Jurors qualified.

The Court appointed FLOYD MEAUX as Foreman of 
the Grand Jury.

Complying with instructions from the Court, the Dep­
uty Clerk of Court produced the Jury Box, properly 
locked, sealed and endorsed, which said endorsement was 
read aloud by the Deputy Clerk of Court, which endorse­
ment was signed by the members of the Ju ry  Commis­
sion of the Parish of Lafayette. Further, following in-



4

structions from the Court, the Deputy Clerk of Court 
opened the box and removed the envelope therefrom, con­
taining the 20 cards having the names and addresses 
and wards of the twenty prospective Jurors. The in­
scription on the envelope was read aloud also. The Court 
instructed the Deputy Clerk of Court to open the en­
velope and place the cards contained therein in another 
box, said box was handed to the Sheriff, who then shook 
the box vigorously and drew therefrom 12 cards with 
the names of 12 separate prospective Jurors, those drawn 
were as follows:

1. Felix Henry Foreman, Jr . 
3, Paul Douglas Perkins
5. James Francis Lavergne
7. Adam William Duhon
9. Floyd Meaux

11. Warren Trahan

2. A. J .  Szabo
4. Bobby Joseph Richard
6. Freddie Lantier
8. John Raywood LeBIanc

10. Robert Arthur Anderson
12. Walter Frank Comeaux

M in u t e s  o f  Gran d  J u r y

THE TRU E BILLS RETU RN ED BY  THE GRAND 
JU R Y  W ERE AS FOLLOWS:

*  *  *  *

“31133 CLAUDE ALEXAN DER & L E E  PE R R Y  PRATT 
AGGRAVATED RA PE”

*  *  *  *

Whereupon, Court then adjourned until the 18th In­
stant.

* * *



5

I n d ic t m e n t— Filed Sept. 15, 1967

S t a t e  o p  L o u isia n a ,
P a r is h  o p  L a f a y e t t e

IN THE NAME AND B Y  THE AUTHORITY OF THE 
STATE OF LOUISIANA:

The Grand Jurors of the State of Louisiana, duly 
empaneled, sworn and charged to enquire within and for 
the Parish of Lafayette, State aforesaid, upon their oath 
do present THAT Claude Alexander and Lee Perry Pratt 
at the Parish of Lafayette, on or about- the 4th day of 
September, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand nine 
hundred and sixty-seven (1967) within the Fifteenth 
(15th) Judicial District of Louisiana, committed aggra­
vated rape upon Linda Louise Dossey contrary to the 
form of the Statute of the State of Louisiana, in such 
cases made and provided and against the peace and 
dignity of the same.

/s /  Bertrand LeBlanc 
District Attorney, 
Fifteenth Judicial District 

of Louisiana



6

M o tio n  to  Qu a sh  I n d ic t m e n t — Piled Nov. 8 , 1967 
F il e d  on  B e h a l f  o f  Cla u d e  A l e x a n d e r

NOW INTO THIS HONORABLE COURT comes 
Claude Alexander through his undersigned Counsel, who, 
having heard the indictment read and protesting that he 
is not guilty of the offense set out therein, moves to quash 
the said indictment, and each count thereof for the fol­
lowing reasons to-wit:

(1) That citizens who are females were systematically 
excluded from the Grand Jury list and venire and 
from the Grand Jury as empaneled.

(2) That citizens of the Negro race were included in 
the Grand Ju ry  list, and Grand Ju ry  venire, in 
such small numbers as to constitute only a token, 
having no relationship to the number of citizens 
of the Negro race as compared to the number of 
citizens of the Caucasian race in the general popu­
lation in the Parish of Lafayette and in the F if­
teenth Judicial District of the State of Louisiana.

(3) That the indictment found by the Grand Jury is 
defective for failing to inform the accused, Claude 
Alexander, of the facts and circumstances neces­
sary to constitute the alleged crime of aggravated 
rape.

(4) That the indictment against Claude Alexander is 
invalid and illegal and should be quashed because 
said indictment was returned by a Grand Jury 
empaneled from a Grand Ju ry  venire made up 
contrary to the provisions of Amendment V., 
Amendment VI., Amendment XIV. and Amend­
ment XV., of the Constitution of the United States 
of America.

W H EREFO RE the said Claude Alexander prays that 
his motion to quash be maintained and that the said in­
dictment as to him, and as far as he is concerned, be de­
clared illegal, null and void, and that he be discharged



7

therefrom and for all general and. equitable relief and all 
necessary orders in the premises, etc.

Lafayette, Louisiana this 8th day of November, 1967.

PlCCIONE, PlCCIONE & WOOTEN 
P. 0. Box 3029, Lafayette, La.

By: / s /  Joseph J .  Pieeione
Attorneys for Claude Alexander

# * # *

S t a t e  E x h i b i t : J u r y  C ard  

[Filed 1-10-67, ,/s/ Joyce Kebodeax, Dy. Clk. of Crt.]

Name Lyons, Percy M. Race W.

Address 221 W. Beverly Dr.,
Lafayette, La.
234-5411— 234-1495

Birth 4-24-1918 Marital S ta tu s__________

Occupation Geologist

Registration: Lafayette Ward 3 Pet. 5
Will Claim Exemption Y e s ___________ N o ___________

GV 3-2-67 
#  37357

DRAWN FOR P E T IT E  JU R Y  SERVICE ON 4-11-67 

Case settled, did not serve



8
State Exhibit “B”

S t a t e  E x h ib it

[Filed 11-10-67, / s /  Joyce Kebodeax, Dy. Clk. of Crt.]

Questionnaire N o .________

QUESTIONNAIRE ON JU R Y  QUALIFICATIONS

Please fill out this questionnaire and return in the 
enclosed stamped and addressed envelope

Ol iv e r  J .  L e B l a n c ,
Clerk of Court and
Ex-officio member of Jury Commission 
Court House 
Lafayette, Louisiana

1. Print name in full ________________________________
F irst Middle Last

2. Residence address ________________________________
Street or Rural Route

________________________________________ Louisiana.
City or town

3. Occupation ________________________________________
4. Residence telephone _____  Business telephone _____

5. Business address ________________________ _________

6. Place of birth ____________________________________
7. Date of birth (month) ---------- (day) —  (year) —

8. Race _______________________  Sex -------------------------

9. How long have you resided in Louisiana? ---------------

How long have you resided in Lafayette Parish? ___

10. Are you a registered v o te r_______________________

Parish Lafayette Ward ------------- P rec in ct---------------



9

11. Are you able to read and write the English lan­
guage? ___________________________________________

12. State highest grade completed in school (or extent
of education) -------------------------------------------------------

IS. Are you under interdiction, that is to say been de­
clared by a court to be mentally incompetent? --------

14. Have you even been convicted or pleaded guilty to
any criminal offense? ---------------------------- ------------- -
I f  so, state crime or crimes, in what Court and 
when. ____________________________________________

15. Do you know of any legal reason why you would
be exempted from jury duty? -------------------------------
I f  exempt, would you waive such exemption? ---------

16. Do you have any physical impairment such a sight,
hearing, etc., which would interfere with your serv­
ing as a ju r o r ? ______ If  so, describe fully----------------

17. What season of the year would be most convenient
for you to serve if chosen? -----------------------------------

18. Have you ever served on a jury? ------------- I f  so, in
what court? ---- ----------------------------------------------------

When ______________________ _____________________

Signature in full

Date

F il l  Ou t  T h is  Qu e s t io n n a ir e  an d  R e t u r n  to  
J u r y  Co m m is sio n  I m m e d ia t e l y



10

JU R Y  COMMISSIONERS FOR THE 
PARISH OF LA FA Y ETTE 
F IFT E E N T H  JU D ICIA L DISTRICT 
STATE OF LOUISIANA

G REETIN G S:

YOU ARE H E R E B Y  REQUESTED  to fill in the in­
formation requested on the reverse side hereof and mail 
same to Oliver J .  LeBlanc, Clerk of Court and ex-officio 
member of the Jury commission, Court House, Lafayette, 
Louisiana, without delay.

ALL QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSW ERED

This notice is to be returned immediately

By authority of the 
Ju ry  Commissioners

/ s /  Oliver J .  LeBlanc 
Ol iv e r  J .  L e B la n c  
Clerk of Court and Ex-officio 

member of the Jury 
Commissioner

ALL INFORMATION MUST BE FURN ISHED AND 
W ILL B E  K EPT CONFIDENTIAL

See reverse side

YOUR NAME IS UNDER CONSIDERATION 
FOR FU TU RE JU R Y  SERVICE



11

S t a t e  E x h i b i t : V o t e r  R e g ist r a t io n  

Pratt Exhibit D

[Filed 11-10-67, ,/s/ Joyce Kebodeax, Dy. Clk. of Crt.] 

itCable Seal]
Date _________________
Ward No______________
Prect. N o._____________

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION

Of f i c e  o f  R e g is t r a r  o f  V o t e r s

P a r ish  o f  L a f a y e t t e ,
S t a t e  o f  L o u isia n a  _______________________________

(Residence Address)

I am a citizen of the United States and of the State of 
Louisiana and have not been disfranchised by any provi­
sions of the constitution of this State.

My name i s _________________________________________
(Mr.-Mrs.-Miss) (First) (Middle Name or Initial) (Last)

I live at ______________________________________________
(House No.) (Apt. No.) (Street) (City or Town)

My sex is (circle one) Male Female
Have you been a resident of this state for more than 

one year, of this parish for over six months, and lived 
at your present address for more than three months, im­
mediately preceding this date. (Check one) Y esO  No □  
The place of my birth is -----------------------------------------------

(City or Town)

(State or Foreign Country) (Parish or County or Province)

I am over 21 years of age and the date of my birth is 
__________________________________  I was last registered

(Month) (Day) (Year)

as a voter in (leave blank if none) ------------------------------
(Parish or County)

(State)



12

I hereby declare my party affiliation to be (circle one)

Democrat - Republican - States Rights - None - Other —
(Indicate your answers to the following questions in 

the spaces provided. All questions must be answered).

Have you been convicted of a felony without receiving 
a full pardon and restoration of franchise? Yes □  No □

Have you been convicted of 2 or more misdemeanors 
and sentenced to a term of ninety (90) days or more in 
jail for each such conviction, other than traffic and/or 
game law violations, within five years before the date 
of making this application for registration as an elector? 
Yes □  No □

Have you been convicted of any misdemeanor and sen­
tenced to a term of six (6) months or more in jail, other 
than traffic and/or game law violations, within one year 
before the date of making this application for registra­
tion as an elector ? Yes □  No □

Have you lived with another in “common law” mar­
riage within five years before the date of making this 
application for registration as an elector? Yes O  No □

Have you given birth to an illegitimate child within 
five years before the date of making this application for 
registration as an elector? (The provisions hereof shall 
not apply to the birth of any illegitimate child conceived 
as a consequence of rape or forced carnal knowledge.) 
Yes □  No □

Have you acknowledged yourself to be the father of an 
illegitimate child within five years before the date of 
making this application for registraton as an elector? 
Yes □  No □

TURN CARD OVER



13

Under Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:222, no person 
shall register falsely or illegally as a voter, or make a 
false statement in an affidavit or other document that he 
presents for the purpose of procuring himself to be regis­
tered or to be retained as a registrant. No person shall 
knowingly present, for any purpose within the purview 
of this Chapter, an affidavit or other document contain­
ing a false statement.

Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not less 
than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, 
or imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than 
one year, or both. The penalties shall be doubled for the 
second or any succeeding offense of the same character. 
I have read the statements above. Yes □  No □

“Applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read and 
write from dictation by the Registrar of Voters from the 
Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of 
America.”

PREAM BLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form 
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic 
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this 
Constitution for the United States of America. (Article 
V III, 1 (c) (7) La. Constitution)

Question Form Selected: (circle one) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  10

CITIZENSHIP TEST FOR REGISTRATION

Circle letter indicating your answers to the six (6) numbered 
questions you have chosen.

1 — a b c  3 — a b c  5 — a b c

2 — a b c  4 — a b c  6 — a b c



14

Sworn to and subscribed
before me this ________
day of _________ , 196__

(Deputy) Registrar

I do solemnly swear that I 
will faithfully and fully abide 
by the laws of this State and 
that I am well disposed to the 
good order and happiness 
thereof.

Applicant’s Signature

The Following Information About The Applicant 
To Be Completed By The Registrar:

My race i s __________The color of my eyes i s _______

My mother’s maiden name i s _______________________

My occupation i s ___________My employer i s ________

Change of address:

D a te ________ A ddress__________________W d .__ P e t .___

D a te ________ Address__________________W d .__Pet.........

D a te ________ Address__________________W d .__P e t .___
Remarks:

Change of name:

D a te ________  I am now Mr.-Mrs.-Miss

(Upon Request, the Registrar Shall Furnish Each 
Applicant a Copy of His Application Form)



15

S t a t e  E x h i b i t : Cl e r k ’s  Ce r t if ic a t e

S t a t e  o f  L o u isia n a  
P a r ish  o f  L a f a y e t t e

This is to certify that on the card index of 7,374, a 
total of 1,015 negroes are included, and also 189 is with 
no race, and it is from this file that all General Venire 
are supplemented.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 14th day of Novem­
ber, 1967.

;/s/ Oliver J .  LeBlane 
Ol iv e r  J .  L e B la n c  
Clerk of Court

S t a t e  E x h i b i t : Cl e r k ’s  Ce r t if ic a t e

S t a t e  o f  L o u isia n a  
P a r ish  o f  L a f a y e t t e

THIS IS TO C E R T IFY  that the attached list is a true 
and correct copy of the names used on the General Venire 
on July 25, 1967 for the purpose of drawing 20 names 
as proposed members of the Grand Jury to be in attend­
ance on September 11, 1967; also, for the purpose of 
drawing 30 names for Petit Jury service on November 
6, 1967; and, also for drawing 30 names for Petit Jury 
to be in attendance on November 27, 1967; also for the 
drawing of 30 names to serve as Petit Jurors on Decem­
ber 18, 1967; also, 30 names for Petit Jury service on 
January 15, 1968; also, 30 names for Petit Ju ry  service 
for February 19, 1968.

From these 400 names, 25 negroes were placed in the 
box and 4 cards drawn show no race.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 14th day of Novem­
ber, 1967 at Lafayette Parish, Lafayette, Louisiana.

/ s /  Oliver J .  LeBlanc 
Ol iv e r  J .  L e B la n c  
Clerk of Court



16

State E xh ibit : L ist of J ury Venire

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

1. Neil Pierre Reaux, Jr . 5 White
2. Sidney Bernard Flynn 3 White
3. Thomas Lee Meaux 3 White
4. Warren James States 3 White
5. Marvin Lesley Reinold 10 White
6. Farrell Morgan 8 White
7. Benny Jules Andrus 10 White
8. Lee Roy Dugas 3 White
9. Carrol Paul Trahan 1 White

10. Joseph Howard Langlinais 8 t t

11. Wilmer Hanes 3 «
12, Arthur James Maloney, Sr. 3 t t

13. Walter Frank Comeaux 3 U

14. Wilven John Duhon 3 it

15. Ralph Donald Dozier 6 it

16. Nerry Antoine Trahan 3 it

17. Emanuel Paul Bercegeay 7 tt

18. Irving Jules Guidry 3 it

19. James Edward Greve, Sr. 10 it

20. Phillip Joseph Barr White
21. Paul Douglas Perkins 3 ((
22. Alvin Edgar Hebert 3 it

23. Antoine Eugene Bergeaux 5 it

24. Freddie J .  Mouton, Jr . 3 a

25. Charles Richard Fernandez, Jr . 5 a

26. Ernest Ignatiaus Fuselier 3 White
27. Joseph Clifton Carmouche 3 Negro
28. Glenn Henry Briley 10 White
29. Clarence Bourque 5 White
30. Francis Savoie 6 White
31. Ariel LeBlane, Jr . 10 White
32. Gene T. Faulk 3 White
33. Luke Mitchelle Guilbeaux 3 White
34. Charles Firmin Levert, Jr . 3 White
35. Edmond Lloyd Guillot 8 White
36. Clement Gautreaux, Jr . 7 it

37. David Guidry, Sr. 3 t t

38, George Patrick Champagne 5 i t

39. Andrus John Duhon 3 a

40. Wallace Joseph Landry 3 a

41. Harold Gene Landry 3 t t

42. Elridge Michael Miller 3 a

43. Raoul D. Breaux 3 tt

44. Warren Trahan 2 tt

45. Lloyd William Johnson 1 tt



17

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

46. Hilbert P. Potier 1 White
47. Herman John Broussard 10 ti

48. Gerald Bernard Landry 9 a

49. Valrie Domingue, Jr . 3 it

50. Thomas Shatter Derveloy 3 White
51. Elvin Jay  Guidry 7 White
52. Norman Joseph Yentzen, Jr . 6 «

53. Charles Richard Lynch White
54. Jack Grant West 6 White
55. J .  Archie Simon 3 it

56. Blaise Arelie Armentor 5 it

57. Robert Pierre Boudreaux 1 it

58. Autrey J .  Baudoin 3 a

59. Maurice James Touchet 2 it

60. George White 3 Negro
61. Pierre V. Landry, Jr . 3 White
62. Charles Lynn Landry 5 it

63. Jerald Max Bearden 10 it

64. Ray Allen Guidry 3 it

65. Maxim Paul Soulier 5 it

66. Charles Carol Comeaux 3 ti

67. Bernice Jean Constantin 2 a

68. Herman Dalton Richard 10 White
69. Howard Joseph Champagne 8 White
70. Carey Allison Williams 8 White
71. Gerald G. Fremin 9 White
72. Reese Edgar Carter 10 White
73. Louis Nolan Menard 3 White
74. Howard Dean Crauey 10 White
75. Allen Hebert White
76. Stanley Joseph Broussard 6 White
77. James Francis Lavergne 1 White
78. Walter Weber 1 White
79. Lee Bruce McGee 1 White
80. Robert Thibodeaux 3 White
81. Earl Joseph Boudreaux 5 White
82. John Paul Gonzales 10 White
83. Lee Roy Dugas 3 White
84. Nathan Ancelet 3 White
85. Emery John Gallet 4 White
86. Eugene Edward Lavergne 3 White
87. Oston Kossuth Simon 2 White
88. Floyd Menard 3 White
89. Saul Perrodin 3 White
90. Malcolm Joseph Bell 7 White
91. Francis Alleman 1 White
92. John Flavius Wilkinson 10 White
93. Joseph C. Chargois 7 White



18

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

94. Frank Louis Girouard, Jr . 5 White
95. Francis Phillip David 9 White
96. Ewell James Sonnier 1 White
97. Freddie Lantier 3 White
98. Alvin James Stelly 1 White
99. Ward Joseph Sanchez, Jr . White

100. Harry Elton Delahoussaye 3 White
101. Judson Alfred Voorhies 3 White
102. Cyrus Joseph Brown 3 Negro
103. Linsey Comeaux 8 White
104. Louis John Bergeron, Jr . 3 White
105. William Alfred Curley 3 White
106. Aaron Joseph Nepveux 3 White
107. James Harold Prejean, Sr. 3 White
108. Sidney Bergeron 1 White
109. Walter Raliegh Broussard 4 White
110. John Austin Hebert 9 White
111. John Allen Stelly White
112. Lee Joseph Bacon 5 White
113. Allen Joseph Fabre 5 White
114. Richard Jarvis Fortier 9 White
115. Robley Menard 7 White
116. Dudley Smith 3 White
117. William. Davis Frazell 3 White
118. Leroy Anthony Monte 3 White
119. Joseph Alvin Thibeaux 3 White
120. Mack L. Dupuis 3 White
121. Joseph C. Glorioso 3 White
122. Sidney Ferdinand Siadous 3 White
123. Edmund Thomas Lemmon 7 White
124. Harry Floyd Broussard 4 White
125. Walter St. Julien Comeaux, Jr . 5 White
126. Harold John Romero 9 White
127. Willis Joseph Morvant 5 White
128. Ramond Edward Billeaud 5 White
129. Maxie Duhon 4 White
130. Lee Hazard Broussard 7 White
131. Jules Dale Vincent 9 White
132. Nunzia Joseph Varisco 7 White
133. Don Louis Landry 7 White
134. Robert Arthur Anderson 5 White
135. Floyd Meaux 3 White
136. Peter Edward Martin, Sr. 8 White
137. Glenn Roberson Nations 10 White
138. Eris J .  LeBlanc 10 White
139. Dalton Trahan 2 White
140. Russell Roderic Mouton 3 Negro



19

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

141. Joseph Wilbert Chevalier 3 Negro
142. Leroy Picard 3 White
143. Edward Louis Stelly 3 White
144. Augustine Joseph Gauthier 7 White
145. Taylor Joseph Landry 3 White
146. Arthur Leo Boulet 3 White
147. Adam William Duhon 3 White
148. George Mouton 3 White
149. Gilbert Roderick Fontenot 3 White
150. John Tarleton Word 3 White
151. Robert R. Stafford 3 White
152. Albert Russell Picket 3 White
153. Forrest Kent Dowty 3 White
154. John Edmond McElligott, Sr. 3 White
155. Eugene Harris Darnall 3 White
156. Dan Irvin Quin White
157. Anthony Reynolds Negro
158. Willie B. Washington 5 Negro
159. James Clifford Shay, Sr. 3 Negro
160. Frank Raphael Durand 3 White
161. Francis Ephrem Boustany 3 White
162. Charles Augustus Miller 3 White
163. Jimmy J . Benoit 8 White
164. Adam Romero 1 White
165. Joseph Withheld Benoit 1 Negro
166. Theo Henry Weber 1 White
167. Theodore B. Shaikewitz 10 White
168. Emerson Jackson Foote 5 White
169. Evan Henry Hughes 3 White
170. Henry Edwin Featherston 10 White
171. James Joseph Daigle 3 White
172. Roland F. Pohler 10 White
173. Paul Sonnier 1 White
174. Curtis Broussard 8 White
175. Carrol Lee Sonnier 8 White
176. Carroll E. Guilbeau 6 White
177. Wesley Eli Beadle, Jr . 7 White
178. Gerald Joseph Guidry 10 White
179. Claude Joseph Thomas 3 White
180. Bernard Prejean White
181. Joseph Prejean 7 Negro
182. Wilmer Curtis Goss, Jr . White
183. J .  Warren Landry 1 White
184. Ivan Anthony Bourdier White
185. George Dallas Turner White
186. Edward Clarence Ledet 3 Negro
187. Teddy Arceneaux 1 White



20

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

188. Ted Allman Richardson 3 White
189. James Hilary Burleigh 6 White
190. Aaron States 8 White
191. James Viel Savoie 6 White
192. Currise Jude Broussard 1 White
193. Joseph Leonce LeBlane 3 White
194. Glenn E. F. Oser 3 White
195. Paul Guidry 8 White
196. Clifton Anthony Duplin 1 White
197. James Leewood Breaux 1 White
198. James Arthur Nolan, Jr . 7 White
199. Felton Paul Romero 3 White
200. Otto Joseph Reaux 10 White
201. Joseph Le Baudion 1 White
202. V. Fred Keener 10 White
203. Harold Charles Champagne 10 White
204. Clifton Pierre Broussard 4 White
205. Curtiss Glenn Gilley 5 White
206. Austin Trahan 1 White
207. Santo Anthony Martaroma 3 White
208. Aulley Joseph Breaux 3 White
209. Bill Joseph Garcia 5 White
210. Earl Brown Flatt 3 White
211. Donald Louis Roger 6 White
212. Paul Albert Thibodeaux 3 V

213. Alcee Clemence Matthews 3 White
214. Marion F. Pruitt 3 White
215. Larry Louis Benoit 3 White
216. Glenn Daniel Baker 5 White
217. Stephen Lemelle 3 Negro
218. Elias Guidry 8 White
219. Tom Brook Metcalfe 10 White
220. John Raywood LeBlane 9 White
221. Narcisse Joseph Dominque 2 Negro
222. A. J .  Azabo 10
223. Bobby Joseph Richard 6 White
224. Vernon Patrick Landry 1 White
225. Calvin Louis Lantier 8 White
226. Ralph Douglas McGee, Jr . 10 White
227. Dudley Joseph Richard 3 White
228. Vinegnt Lawrence Lauin 10
229. Pierre Roger 1 White
230. Robert Louis Brakefield, Jr . 10 White
231. Francis William Miller 10 White
232. Carroll Joseph Green 10 White
233. Charles N. Lenox, Jr . 10 White



21

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

234. Lee James Blanchard 3 White
235. Leo A. Cavell 7 White
236. Walter Lee Miller 3 White
237. Tophie Joseph Mahfouz 3 White
238. Gervin Gregory Tweedel 3 White
239. Joseph L. Guidry 3 White
240. Phillip Joseph Dubois 3 White
241. Louis Locke Neveu 5 White
242. John Bodin, Jr . 5 White
243. Elridge Joseph Kidder 6 White
244. Roy Jean Landry 5 White
245. Maurice Joseph Sonnier 3 White
246. Burton Andrus 6 White
247. Edward Eugene Hernandez 3 White
248. Archie Francis, Sr. 1 Negro
249. John Bunyan Smith, Jr . 3 White
250. Larry Lee Boudreaux 8 White
251. Robert Frank Wendrock 3 White
252. John Vinson Staten, Jr . 3 Negro
253. Francis LeBlanc 8 White
254. Dozier Lester, Jr . 10 White
255. Ervin Joseph Breaux 6 White
256. Nolan John Istre 2 White
257. Alvin Albert King 10 White
258. Charles Frank Gautreaux 3 White
259. Wesley Guidry 2 White
260. Vincent Guidry 3 White
261. Robert Rosswell Burkee, Jr . 10
262. John Warren Fontenot 3 White
263. Fernand J .  Broussard 3 White
264. Alexander Clause 6 White
265. Percy Luke Breaux 1 White
266. John Maxie Broussard, Sr. 7 White
267. Ivy Richard, Jr . 3 W’hite
268. Oran Joseph Theriot 5 White
269. Joseph Hebert, Jr . 5 White
270. Linton Pierre Landry 3 White
271. Arthur Gail Randol, Jr . 3 White
272. John Allen Chiasson 3 White
273. Solomon Arthur Womack, Jr . 3 White
274. Joseph Albert Dugas 3 White
275. Dallas Paul Vincent 3 White
276. Rodney P. Alleman 3 White
277. Lizzie Joseph Mouton 3 White
278. Percy Willis Champagne 3 White
279. Curley Joseph Romero 3 White
280. Bryan Dale LeJeune 2 White



22

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

281. Henry L. Rich 10 White
282. Clarence Russell Craddock 10 White
283. Alcee Clemence Matthew 3 White
284. William Jeffrey Broussard 4 White
285. Frank Paul Piccione 3 White
286. Jackie Lee Mayers 3 White
287. Chester Jean Lantier 2 White
288. Paul Thibodeaux, Jr . 7 White
289. John William Thomas 1 White
290. Thomas Emile Vincent 3 White
291. Jerry  Dale Guidry 3 White
292. Joseph Donald Sonnier 2 White
293. Henry Romero, Jr . 3 White
294. Lee Joseph Guidry 3 White
295. Henry Clifton Denais 3 White
296. Allen M. Beasley 10 White
297. Maxson Jean Duhon 2 White
298. Jimmie Floyd Vincent 3 White
299. Arthur Falls Schafer 7 White
300. Joseph Berchman Daigle 5 White
301. Sam Sylvester Allgood, Jr . 10 White
302. Robert V. Fleming 3 White
303. Clovis Dalcour, Jr . 3 Negro
304. John Elridge Lagneaux 2 White
305. Paul Milton Domingue 2 White
306. Arthur Joseph Felscher 7 White
307. Lucas Stacy Denais 9 White
308. Chester Duhon 1 White
309. Richard Ardoin 3 White
310. Ira  Paul Peltier 8 White
311. Jessie Lee Hidalgo 3 White
312. Marc Emory Derouen 3 White
313. Helaire Trahan, Jr . 1 White
314. Edwin Hebert 8 White
315. Jean B. Gallet 4 White
316. Joseph Lee Chavalier 3 Negro
317. Robley Joseph Hebert 3 White
318. Alfred Louis Sonney 3 Negro
319. Wilbert Joe 3 Negro
320. Dennis Ray Hoffpauir 8 White
321. Charles Guidry 8 White
322. Presley Paul Decou 4 White
323. Neely Eugene Lowrie 10 White
324. Joseph Dalton Joe 3 Negro
325. Anthony Pete Arceneaux 8 White
326. Curtis J .  Alleman 2 White
327. Earsby John Rideaux 1 Negro



23

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

328. Ellzey J .  Terro 2 White
329. Clarence Gumbs 2 Negro
330. Dudley Earl Duhon 2 White
331. Wallace Joseph Living 3 Negro
332. Dudley Joseph Hebert 3 White
333. Edmar Thibeaux 3 White
334. Albert Louvierre 8 White
335. Paul Dunand, Jr . 3 White
336. Felix Henry Foreman, Jr . 3 White
337. Nolan Joseph Winters 3 Negro
338. Richard Gerald DePew 3 White
339. Rayburn Dale Ocamb 10 White
340. Joseph Hypolite Rivore 3 White
341. Charles Albert May, Jr . 3 White
342., Batson Boudreaux 3 White
343. Joseph O. Trahan 5 White
344. Paul Roy Girouard 5 White
345. Charles Joseph Barras, Jr . 7 White
346. Hardy J . Druand 3 White
347. Nerry Comeaux 3 White
348. Jessie James Guidry 3 White
349. Andres Pouroiaux 3 White
350. Claude David Martin 3 White
351. Dougas Savoy 3 White
352. Jimmy R. Gibson 10 White
353. Allen John Anslern 3 White
354. Floyd Anthony Meaux 3 White
355. Werner Henke 3 White
356. Nolan J . Badeaux 10 White
357. Wilfred Jules Guidry 3 White
358. Richard Crosby Sealy 3 White
359. Loomis Joseph Dugas 1 White
360. James Orland Underwood 3 White
361. Donald George Hansen 10 White
362. Kenneth Eldridge Toombs 3 White
363. Edwin Lee Doyal 5 White
364. Grant D. Carroll 3 White
365. Joseph Ransom Malveaux 3 Negro
366. Allen Anthony Bernard 3 White
367. Dennis Racca 3 White
368. Raymond Joseph Laurent 3 White
369. LeRoy Francis O’Brien 3 White
370. John Clanviele Savoy 3 White
371. Billy Marion Ferriss 3 White
372. Eugene Gerald Junionville 10 White
373. Dudley Joseph Hebert 3 White
374. Lloyd J .  Broussard 4 White



24

NAME WARD PREC. RACE

375. Lawrence E. Foxworth 3 White
376. Glen Cates White
377. Robert L. Miller 10 White
378. Thomas Charles Menard 3 White
379. Grifford Adam Cormier 1 White
380. Eddie Benoit 2 White
381. Elmer Roy Scales 3 White
382. Joseph Clifton Young 3 Negro
383. Anthony Simon 3 White
384. Eric Joseph Granger 5 White
385. Joseph Blanchard
386. Jerry  Noel Begnaud 7 White
387. Harrison Theall 2 White
388. Charles 0 . DeJean, Jr . 3 White
389. George Kermit Guindon 3 White
390. August Bordovsky 8 White
391. Donald M. Bailey 10 White
392. Clarence White 6 Negro
393. William Edward Leece 3 White
394. George Joseph Martin 1 White
395. Gilbert Ardoin 3 White
396. James Calvin Breaux 3 White
397. Marcel Brasseaux 6 White
398. Arthur James Billeaud 1 White
399. Kenneth Carlyle Jennings 10 White
400. Joseph Merlin Gautreaux 1 White

[Filed this 28 day of Nov., 1967, / s /  Joyce Kebodeax 
Dy. Clerk of Court.]



S t a t e  o f  L o u isia n a  
P a r is h  o f  L a f a y e t t e

25

THIS IS TO C E R T IFY  that the attached list is a 
true and correct copy of the names used on the General 
Venire on July 25, 1967 for the purpose of drawing 20 
names as proposed members of the Grand Jury to be in 
attendance on September 11, 1967; also, for the purpose 
of drawing 30 names for Petit Jury service on November 
6, 1967; and, also for drawing 30 names for Petit Jury 
to be in attendance on November 27, 1967; also for the 
drawing of 30 names to serve as Petit Jurors on Decem­
ber 18, 1967; also, 30 names for Petit Ju ry  service on 
January 15, 1968; also, 30 names for Petit Ju ry  service 
for February 19, 1968.

From these 400 names, 25 negroes were placed in the 
box and 4 cards drawn show no race.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 14th day of Novem­
ber, 1967 at Lafayette Parish, Lafayette, Louisiana.

/S/  Oliver J .  LeBlanc 
Ol iv e r  J .  L e B la n c  
Clerk of Court

A  T r u e  C o py  A t t e s t  
Lafayette, La., 11-28-67

/&/ Joyce Kebodeax
Dy. Clerk of Court

[Filed this 28 day of Nov., 1967, /&/ Joyce Kebodeax 
Dy. Clerk of Court.]



26

P e r  Cu r ia m — B il l  o f  E x c e p t io n  N o. 10

Defendant’s Motion to Quash is without merit. On the 
question of inclusion and exclusion of Negroes, see State 
of Louisiana vs. Lucien Peters, 204 So. 2d. 284 and cases 
cited therein; and Brooks vs. Beto, 366 F. 2d 1, Cert, 
denied, 87 S. Ct. 1169, rehearing denied, 87 S. Ct. 1489 
and cases cited therein; on the question of exclusion of 
women, see Article 402 La. Code of Criminal Procedure 
and Hoyt vs. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 82 S. Ct. 159, 7 L. 
Ed. 2d. 118.

January 31st, 1969.

i/s/ Jerome E. Domengeaux 
District Judge



27

PR E SE N T :
H o n . J e r o m e  E. D o m en g ea u x  
J udge P r e sid in g

FOR THE STA TE:
B er t r a n d  D e B l a n c , E sq,
District Attorney 
Lafayette, Louisiana

FOR THE D EFEN DAN TS:
C la u d e  A l e x a n d e r , In Proper Person, repre­
sented by J o s e p h  P ic c io n e , E sq .
Lafayette, Louisiana
L e e  P e r r y  P r a t t , In Proper Person, repre­
sented by  W il l ia m  L ogan , E sq .
Lafayette, Louisiana

OPEN COURT 
LA FA YETTE, LOUISIANA

JAN UARY 5, 1968

NOTE OF EVIDEN CE 
(Informal discussion off the record.)

R u l in g  on M o tio n s  to  Qu a sh

BY  THE COURT:
The Court in each case, after having heard the motions 

to quash, the Court now overrules and denies the motion 
to quash filed by tho Dofondant Claudo Aloxaudor and tho 
motion to quash filed by the Defendant Lee Perry P iatt.

BY  MR. PICCION E:
Your Honor, in the case of STATE OF LOUISIANA 

-VS- CLAUDE ALEXANDER, Defendant Claude Alex­
ander reserves a bill of exception to the ruling of the



28

Court on his motion to quash and particularly as to 
Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the motion to quash and makes a 
[fol. 2] part of the bill of exception the motion to quash 
heretofore filed herein, the evidence taken at the trial of 
the motion to quash of the members of the grand jury and 
jury venire commission and the ruling of the Court and of 
course our exception to it.

B Y  THE COURT:

All right, let the objection and exception be noted.

BY  MR. LOGAN:

Your Honor, in connection with Lee Perry Pratt we 
will make the same exception and reserve a bill of ex­
ception with specific note of the answer of the Clerk to 
the percentage of Negroes included on the venire as show­
ing only 6.25 per cent.

B Y  THE COURT:

Okay, let the objection and exception be noted. 

EVIDEN CE CLOSED

* * * *



Hon. J erome E. Domengeaux 
J udge Presiding

29

FOR THE STA TE:

B ertrand DeB lanc, E sq.
District Attorney 
Lafayette, Louisiana

FOR THE DEFEN DAN TS:
Claude Alexander, In Proper Person, repre­
sented by J oseph P iccione, E sq.
Lafayette, Louisiana
Lee Perry Pratt, In Proper Person, repre­
sented by W illiam Logan, E sq.
Lafayette, Louisiana

OPEN COURT 
LA FA YETTE, LOUISIANA

NOVEMBER 10, 1967

MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT 
(Informal discussion off the record.)

MR. PICCIONE: Mr. Landry, please.
Thereupon,

ERA STE R. LANDRY

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

B Y  MR. PICCION E:
Q Please state your name and residence.
A Eraste R. Landry.
Q And your residence?
A Youngsville, Louisiana.



30

[fol. 2] Q Mr. Landry, what is your public office?
A Registrar of Voters, Lafayette Parish.
Q How long have you held that office?
A F irst time I went in 1937 through June, 1940, and 

I  came back January, ’48, until now.
Q Are you just about a lifelong resident of Lafayette 

Parish?
A That’s right.
Q Mr. Landry, according to your knowledge of the 

registered voters of this Parish, can you tell us in close 
approximation the number of white people registered to 
vote and the number of colored people registered to vote 
as of, say, the past six months?

A You mean total of what I have on the book right 
now?

Q That’s all right.
A We have forty thousand eight hundred and ninety- 

six total. Out of that we have six thousand five hundred 
and forty-one Negroes.

Q So presumably the rest would be white.
A Correct.
Q Now, would that be substantially about in the same 

proportion during the past six months?
A Well, we increased the last six months quite a bit.
Q You mean that the total number of voters has in­

creased in the past six months.
A That’s correct.
Q On the other hand, what about the comparison be­

tween the number of colored people as compared to the 
number of white people, is that about the same compari­
son?

A I would imagine so, yes.
Q It has held pretty steady for the past six months, 

[fol. 3] A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Landry, would it be to your knowledge and ob­

servation of the facts of life a correct statement that 
about half of the population of Lafayette Parish is fe­
male and about half is male?

MR. DEBLANC: We object to that. I t  calls for an 
opinion and he is not qualified to give an opinion as to 
how many males or females in the Parish.



31

MR. PICCIONE: That’s almost something that Your 
Honor could take judicial cognizance of.

(Argument off the record.)
Q (By Mr. Piccione) I f  you know, Mr. Landry, can 

you say how many males are registered and how many 
females are registered?

A Well, that I don’t know right now. I might have 
the record in the office.

Q You mean you probably have that count made in 
the office as such?

A Male and female?
Q I ’m sure the Court would give you time to go look 

at it if  you have it.
A Well, I have it. I f  the Court allows me, I ’ll go and 

get my record over there.
Q Except by checking the records you’re unable to say 

about what the comparison is between male and female.
A No, not right now.
THE COURT: How long would it take you to deter­

mine that from your records?
THE W ITN ESS: Well, I could find that out from my 

secretary right away.
MR. PICCION E: I f  he has it, Your Honor, I would 

like to put it in the record.
[fol. 4] THE COURT: I would think if he has it it 
would be in order.

MR. PICCIONE: And that’s all the questions, Your 
Honor.

THE COURT: Would you mind checking on that and 
they’ll call you back.

THE W IT N E SS: Okay.
THE COURT: Does the State have any questions?
THE W ITN ESS: No questions, Your Honor.

(Witness excused)
MR. PICCIONE: Mr. LeBlanc.

Thereupon,
OLIVER J .  LeBLANC

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:



32

EXAMINATION

B Y  MR. PICCION E:

Q Please state your name and residence.
A Oliver J .  LeBlanc, Lafayette, Louisiana.
Q What public office do you hold, Mr. LeBlanc?
A Clerk of Court.
Q Are you also a member of the Jury Commission?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you act as a member of the Ju ry  Commission 

in drawing up a grand jury venire which made its re­
turn in the first week or two of September of this year?

A Yes, sir.
Q That would be the same grand jury that returned 

an indictment against Claude Alexander, do you know 
that, sir?

A Yes, sir.
[fob 5] Q Yes. Mr. LeBlanc, are you familiar with the 
procedures followed by the Ju ry  Commission in drawing 
up the venire of three hundred names for the grand jury?

A Yes, sir.
Q And you participated in that procedure?
A Yes, sir.
Q In drawing up the list of three hundred names, 

were any citizens of the female sex included?
A No.
Q In fact, all women were excluded, isn’t that right?
A We didn’t  have any names submitted to us of any 

with the intention of willing to serve.
Q And you didn’t look for any names of women to 

serve on the jury, the grand jury.
A That’s right.
Q And none were listed on the grand jury venire.
A That’s right.
Q And this may be a projection, but in fact you will 

follow the same procedure, will you not, when you select 
the petit jury venire?

A That’s right.
Q Has that petit jury venire already been selected?
A Yes, sir.



33

Q For such jury that might sit on a case beginning 
on November 27, 1967?

A I f  it’s the same time of criminal court.
Q Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q And is it a fact that on that petit jury venire as 

well as on that grand jury venire there were no women, 
[fol. 6] A That’s right.

Q And there are no women listed.
A That’s right.
Q Now, Mr. LeBlanc, did you see the members of the 

grand jury that was empaneled on September 11, 1967 
when this criminal term opened?

A I ’m not familiar with the grand jury personally 
and I don’t remember if  I saw them because we have a 
lot of grand juries or petit juries and I might have not 
gone to court that date.

Q Mr. LeBlanc, I think that this may help you and 
I believe you furnished me or the deputy clerk furnished 
me with a copy of the twelve names, of the twelve men, 
who served on the grand jury for September 11, 1967. Do 
you recognize that list?

A Yes, sir.
Q And they are all men, are they not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know them all to be white men or members 

of the Caucasian race?
A I ’m not familiar with all of them, Mr. Piccione. 

I ’m not sure if they are or not. I couldn’t answer that.
Q You really don’t have no knowledge whether they 

are all white or not.
A. That’s right,
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, I would like to offer in 

evidence this list of twelve names of the grand jury as 
empaneled on September 11th, the actual twelve members 
who were empaneled as identified by Mr. LeBlanc.

MR. DeBLANC: I have no objection, subject to its 
correctness, that’s all.

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Mr. LeBlanc, are you satisfied 
[fol. 7] that this is a true and correct list of the twelve 
men, list of the names of the twelve men who were em­
paneled on the grand jury this year?



34

A This could be verified from the minute book. I can’t 
say for sure.

Q Would you prefer to do that before you say?
A Yes.
MR. PICCION E: I ’d like to ask the Court to give Mr. 

LeBlanc time to do that so he can certify it and then I 
will offer it in evidence after doing that.

THE COURT: All right.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Mr. LeBlanc, in making up the 
grand jury venire, was any effort made to include in the 
grand jury venire members of the Negro race as well as 
members of the Caucasian race?

A We don’t make selections, Mr. Piccione. We draw 
them out of the box indiscriminately.

Q You draw them out of the what?
A Out of the general venire box.
Q And how do they get in the general venire box?
A By putting them in the selection on questionnaires 

that comes to us, other list that we send out from the 
registrar of voter’s list, names, submitted to us by mem­
bers of the Ju ry  Commission.

Q In other words, names submitted by the members 
of the Ju ry  Commission itself of which you are a mem­
ber.

A Yes.
Q Did you submit some names?
A No.

[fob 8] Q Did the other members submit some names?
A Some time ago they did bring us a list of names 

that— to be considered by the Ju ry  Commission as a 
whole.

Q And were they put in the venire box?
A Some of them were and some of them were not.
Q Was any conscious effort made to include members 

of the Negro race?
A We do not make selection from race. We just go to 

the questionnaires or by recommendations, one way or 
the other.



85

Q Now you said that list was put in the venire box. 
What list?

A The slips or list that are put in the general venire 
box are made from questionnaires that I mailed out.

Q Questionnaires?
A Yes.
Q That are mailed out to whom?
A To different people in the Parish.
Q And these questionnaires ask them to recommend—
A No, no, to fill in questionnaires to get their qualifi­

cations and occupations to see if they are qualified to serve 
on the jury.

Q Now, who is this questionnaire sent to? How is 
that determined?

A To the different people in the Parish by the regis­
trar of voter’s list and the telephone book, city directory, 
different lists that are submitted by school board or any 
list that we can find that we think we got address for the 
mixed race one way or the other.

Q In this instance here of this grand jury venire, the 
last one that we’re talking about, was the list of regis- 
[fol. 9] tered voters from Mr. Eraste Landry’s office used?

A It was.
Q Did that include the list of colored voters as well as 

white voters?
A It  did.
Q Were any selections made from the list of colored 

voters?
A No selections were made from colored voters or 

white voters. They were taken if we thought that they 
were qualified to serve on the jury.

Q Were questionnaires sent to every member of the 
list indiscriminately or were only certain ones selected 
and questionnaires sent to them?

A The questionnaire was sent the first time to one out 
of every eight from the registrar of voter’s list.

Q Do you mean that you selected the one out of eight 
or did you go down the list and take every eighth one?

A Took every eighth one. I f  it was a doctor or if it 
was a lady or if it was a school bus driver, the typist 
was instructed to take the next one.



36

Q In other words, if you hit an eighth one that ap­
peared for some reason to be exempted you took the next 
one.

A Yes.

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:

Q Mr. LeBlanc, I gather from what you’ve said that 
you have a broad base from which you start. Is that cor­
rect?

A That’s right.
Q Now you start off by taking every eighth name of 

the registered voters from the list in the registrar of vot­
er’s office.
[fol. 10] A Yes, sir.

Q Wherein there are approximately forty thousand 
persons registered.

A Yes.
Q And if the eighth name is a person who is exempted 

by the law of Louisiana, such as bus drivers, women, doc­
tors, lawyers, then you go to the next name. Is that cor­
rect?

A Yes.
Q Now, then, what do you do with that name? What 

do you do with the name?
A We send them a letter.
Q Don’t you make a card on them, too?
A We did, but then we found out it was best to wait 

until the questionnaires came in to make a card. Then 
we make a card after the questionnaires come in with the 
information.

Q But each one of those eighth names— this eighth 
name that you pick out, isn’t a card ultimately made on 
him?

A Yes, that’s right.
Q I t ’s a little four by five card?
A Yes.
Q And you have possession of that card?
A Yes.
Q And they are put in like a card index?



37

A Yes, sir.
Q In alphabetic order?
A Yes.
Q So you have thousands and thousands of names?
A Yes.
Q Which were taken from the registrar of voter’s 

list.
A That’s right.

[fol. 11] Q And you take them out of there, the eight 
names, regardless of whether they’re wThite or colored. Is 
that correct?

A That’s right.
Q Now, then, you also take names from other lists 

like the telephone book?
A That’s right.
Q You have taken names from the Lafayette telephone 

book which includes Lafayette, Broussard, Carencro, 
Youngsville, Duson and other rural parts of the Parish.

A That’s correct.
Q In other -words, you have a telephone book which 

covers all telephones in the Parish of Lafayette.
A Yes.
Q And you take names out of that.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you also have a city directory which you use 

of the City of Lafayette?
A Yes.
Q And you take names out of that.
A Yes.
Q Indiscriminately ?
A Yes.
Q Now, you have other lists besides that that you take 

names from?
A The Jury Commission brought in some names.
Q People that they know themselves?
A Yes. And we sent questionnaires out. Of course it 

wasn’t that many. But it was more or less a duplication 
of the list we already had.

Q You have a copy of that questionnaire with you?
[fol. 12] A I can get one.

Q Can you get it so we can see it?



38

A Yes.
Q Can you send somebody to pick one up, and also a 

sample of the card?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Off the record.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: Show that Mr. Eraste Landry is now 
back on the stand.
Thereupon,

ER A STE R. LANDRY

was recalled as a witness, and having previously been 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCIGN E:
Q Mr. Landry, can you state how many females were 

registered to vote in Lafayette Parish?
A Yes, sir. Out of the forty thousand eight hundred 

and ninety-six total registered, we had seventeen thousand 
eight hundred and three white males and we have six­
teen thousand four hundred and eighty-three white fe­
males; we have in colored male, three thousand five hun­
dred and seventy-three; colored females, three thousand 
and thirty-seven.

Q And that’s as of right now.
A Yes, sir.
Q Would that proportion approximately have been 

maintained fairly well in the past six months?
A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Landry, as a man who has lived in Lafayette 

[fob 13] Parish for a long time, would you look at these 
twelve names and state If you know those people and are 
they white or colored?

MR. DeBLANC: We object to that unless he has— it’s 
calling for an opinion.

(Argument off the record.)



39

THE COURT: You may answer.
THE W ITN ESS: The first one, Felix Henry Fore­

man, Jr .,  white man; Paul Douglas Perkins, I don’t know 
him; James Francis Lavergne— I know them names but I 
don’t know them people; Adam William Duhon; Floyd 
Meaux, I know him; Warren Trahan, I ’m not sure I know 
him; John Raywood LeBlane, I know him; Bobby Joseph 
Richard; Robert Arthur Anderson; Walter Frank Com­
eaux, I know him; Adam William Duhon; A. J .  Szabo, 
I know him.

Q (By Mr. Piccione) All those that you know are 
white people?

A Yes, sir.
Q And there’s none on there that you recognize as 

being colored.
A Well, like I say, I don’t know them—
Q You don’t know them, yes, sir.
MR. PICCION E: That’s all, Mr. Landry.
MR. DeBLANC: No questions.

EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. LOGAN:
Q Mr. LeBlane says that he uses a list from your 

office in selecting names for potential jurors. Did you 
furnish him a list or does he actually use your cards?

A Well, he uses my cards. He sent a girl out there to 
type those cards.

Q Off of your cards?
[fol. 14] A Yes, sir.

Q Now, do your cards show the occupation of the per­
son?

A Yes, sir.
Q Does it show his education?
A I don’t know.
Q Does it show his race?
A Well, yes, it does.
Q Do you have a blank one of those cards that you 

could give us that that information was taken from?
A What you mean?



40

Q You don’t have a blank card in your office of the 
kind that you gave Mr. LeBlanc to get the information 
from?

A Yes.
Q Could you furnish us one, please.
A Yes. You mean the application card?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q The card you would furnish in blank, all those 

would be filled in when someone registers to vote?
A Well, when he took it out from the office they were 

all typed, yes, sir; all in a file.
Q I mean, all the blanks were filled in.
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. Would you furnish us a blank card, 

please.
A Yes.

(Witness excused)

Thereupon,
OLIVER J .  LeBLANC

was recalled as a witness, and having previously been 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

[fol. 15] EXAMINATION (CONT’D.)

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
Q I ’d like to show you these cards which I mark state 

Exhibit “A”. I ’ll put this one as “B ”. I show you this 
card, State Exhibit “A” and ask you if this is one of the 
cards you make up?

A Yes. We make this from the questionnaire.
Q And that card— and the questionnaire is sent to the 

people you get from the list, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q This is one of the names that you got from some 

of these many lists that you made copies from, right?
A Right.
Q And you send them each a questionnaire?
A Yes, sir.



41

Q I show you State Exhibit “B ” and ask you if this is 
the kind of questionnaire that you send out?

A Yes, that’s the questionnaire.
MR. DeBLANC: Now subject to substituting a certi­

fied copy of these, the State will move to introduce into 
evidence State Exhibit “A” and State Exhibit B .

MR. PICCIONE: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let both State Exhibit “A” and State 

Exhibit “B” be admitted and leave is granted for the 
purpose of substituting a photostatic copy of State E x­
hibit “A”.

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Then when they send that ques­
tionnaire back filled up, then you use that information to 
determine whether or not that they are qualified for jury 
service. Is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
[fol. 16] Q And it’s from these questionnaires and the 
returns from these questionnaires that you then select the 
three hundred names of the general venire. Is that cor­
rect?

A That’s correct.
Q And you make any distinction there between races 

when you pick them out as long as they qualify?
A No, it makes no difference if they’re white or black. 

As long as we think they can serve they’re placed in the 
box.

Q And then of course after they’re placed m the box, 
arbitrarily placed in the box, then when you take out the 
names from that box to be placed in the list, you make 
out your list for your petit jury and your grand jury, 
then those are drawn by lot out of the big box. Is that 
correct?

A That’s correct.
Q So it depends on luck or chance as to what comes

out of the box.
A That’s correct.
Q As far as race is concerned, you could have all 

whites or you could have all black.
A That’s a possibility.
MR. DeBLANC: That’s all.



42

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCION E:

Q Mr. LeBlanc, perhaps I didn’t understand. Bid you 
say that you sent the questionnaire out first and then 
from the questionnaire answered you made out the card, 
or did you make out the card first and then sent out the 
questionnaire?

A The first time we made the cards out, the second 
time we waited until the questionnaires came in and then 
made the cards from the questionnaires. Because in order 
to get the information we need on the card it’s necessary 
[fol. 17] to get the questionnaires sometimes.

Q In other words, you had a list of people that showed 
you who to mail the questionnaire to; you mail the ques­
tionnaire and you got an answer and then you made out 
your cards.

A That’s correct in some cases.
Q And from the cards is where your venire list of 

three hundred names came. Is that right?
A These are the cards we keep in the file as a record 

of jurors; however, the general venire is a small slip of 
paper that’s typed.

Q Now, Mr. LeBlanc, does anything in the telephone 
book tell you who is white or colored?

A No.
Q Does anything in the city directory tell you who is 

white or colored?
A No.
Q Does your questionnaire ask the question, in fact, 

No. 8, race?
A Yes, sir.
Q It does?
A Yes.
Q Does it also ask sex?
A It does.
Q Does your card from which you make your venire 

list ask the question race in the upper right-hand corner?
A It does.
Q In other words, then, on the three hundred names 

that went into the grand jury venire, you would have a



43

record of the name and the address of that person and 
the race of that person.
[fol. 18] A No, not on the card that went in the gen­
eral venire box.

Q Why not?
A It ’s a slip of paper only with the name and the 

address in the general venire box.
Q Yes, but in making the decision to put that name 

with that address in that general venire box, you knew 
at the time you placed it in there from the card, the card 
informed you whether they were white or colored, did it 
not?

A We didn’t look at that, Mr. Piccione. What we did, 
we need a hundred names, say, to fill the general venire 
box, we get a stack of questionnaires and we just remove 
the clips and put the paper in the box the moment they 
are qualified.

Q Mr. LeBlanc, you say you didn’t  look at that, but 
still your questionnaire calls for race, your card informs 
you on race, am I not correct?

A That’s correct. We have this on there because this 
is merely for identification of this particular individual.

Q Now, Mr. LeBlanc, do you know of your own 
knowledge the actual three hundred that were put on the 
grand jury venire for this term of court how many of 
them were white and how many were colored?

A I can’t tell you that.
Q But the cards that correspond to their names would 

tell you that, wouldn’t they?
A There’s a possibility.
Q And you could look at that list you have in your 

office, the list of the three hundred names on that grand 
jury venire and you have the cards on those same indi­
viduals which says whether they are white or colored. Is 
that correct, sir?

A We have a card in file of these slips of paper that 
[fol. 19] we have in the general venire box.

Q And you could prepare a list or a certificate of 
those names and their races as shown by your records 
knowledge that the grand— that your jury commission



44

had at its disposal when it selected the venire. Isn’t  that 
correct, sir?

A You talk on three hundred which is what it should 
be. Of course the new law says not less than three hun­
dred. Since we have so many juries to select we in­
creased the list on the general venire to four hundred.

Q So are you saying in this case four hundred were 
selected?

A Yes.
Q So my question is, you do have a list of that four 

hundred and you can check the cards to find out and to 
put down what their races were. It  could be determined 
how many were whites and how many were colored.

A It could be determined in a matter of a week or 
ten days.

MR. PICCION E: Well, Your Honor, we move for the 
disclosure of that information because it’s relevant to our 
motion to quash. We request the Court to please instruct 
Mr. LeBlanc as Clerk and ex-officio member of the jury 
commission to prepare a suitable certificate or list certi­
fying to the names on the grand jury venire, four hun­
dred or whatever it is, the addresses are not necessarily 
pertinent, but the names are and the races as shown by 
the white card and on questionnaires that Mr. LeBlanc 
has testified he has on every one of those names. Now 
he may not know of his own personal knowledge whether 
they are white or how many are white or how many are 
colored, but his records show and his records were before 
him and the other commissioners 'when the venire was 
[fob 20] selected.

(Argument off the record.)
THE COURT: Let me defer ruling on that at this 

time.
EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. DeBLANC:

Q Can you tell us how many white persons and how 
many Negroes were sent questionnaires?

A No, sir.



45

Q You can’t do that?
A No, sir.
Q You don’t have that information?
A We sent five or six thousand letters out, but I don’t 

know how many white or how many colored.
THE COURT: I gather from that, Mr. LeBlane, that 

you pick every eighth name as you explained a moment 
ago without regard as to the race of that person. Is that 
correct?

THE W ITN ESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I t ’s for that reason then that you can­

not say how many white questionnaires were sent out and 
how many colored questionnaires were sent out because 
they were chosen indiscriminately every so many names. 
Is that correct?

THE W ITN ESS: That’s right.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) And you did not keep a list of 

that.
A I did not keep a list of that.
Q Now, you sent out how many questionnaires would 

you estimate?
A The first time I sent out approximately eight thou­

sand.
Q How about the second time?
A The second time approximately three thousand. But 

both times we had about fifty per cent return mail.
[fol. 21] Q Both times fifty per cent returns?

A Yes.
Q Well, now, would you say that you had more returns 

from Negroes or from whites?
A Well, I would assume by looking at the question­

naires that we had more returns from the white people.
Q Could you say approximately how many more in 

percentagewise?
A No.
Q Would you say that there was a great number 

more of whites than Negroes?
A Well, working with the list we had in the percent­

age of registered voters together with the telephone book 
and city directory, naturally there was a greater per­
centage of personal mail to the white people than to the



46

Negroes. And for that reason it follows that we had 
larger replies from the white than from the colored.

Q But you did send this out indiscriminately—
A Yes.
Q — insofar as picking out the names of the voter 

registrants and picking out the names in the telephone 
directory and in the city directory.

A That’s right.
Q Now the city directory has the names of every 

person who lives in Lafayette, do they not?
A Yes.
Q That’s indiscriminately white and colored.
A That’s correct.
Q So you would say then that while you sent out these 

cards indiscriminately to white— questionnaires, that is 
[fol. 22] to say, when you sent out these questionnaires, 
about eleven thousand, that you received about fifty per 
cent back and mostly from whites.

A Mostly from whites is correct.
Q Can you give us the number of white and Negroes 

from whom you received cards?
A No. I don’t keep track of that.
Q From whom you received questionnaires.
A I have all the questionnaires that I received, but I 

don’t know how many whites or how many colored. I 
haven’t counted them.

Q Well, that’s what we want to find out. Can you tell 
us that?

A That would take some time too.
MR. DeBLANC: I think that’s as important as the 

other question.
MR. PICCIONE: I ’d like to ask a couple of more 

questions, Your Honor, in general.

EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. PICCIONE:

Q Mr. LeBlanc, how long have you lived in Lafayette 
Parish, sir?

A I moved here in 1926, I believe, or ’27.
Q And how long have you been Clerk of Court?



47

A Since 1944.
Q Mr. LeBlanc, I ’m sure you consider yourself very 

well acquainted with the population of Lafayette Parish, 
do you not?

A Yes.
Q Can you state to the Court approximately what is 

the ratio in the population general of the white people as 
compared to the colored people?
[fol. 23] MR. DeBLANC: We object to that. He hasn’t 
got that knowledge, Your Honor. He’s asking for an 
opinion.

THE COURT: Well, if he knows.
THE W ITN ESS: I don’t know.
Q (By Mr. Piceione) You couldn’t give us an ap­

proximation?
A No.
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, we would like to of­

fer, file and introduce in evidence the 1960 United States 
Census which I think does make that distiction of Laf­
ayette Parish and I think it was amended in 1966.

(Argument off the record.)
Q (By Mr. Piceione) Mr. LeBlanc, is it correct then 

that at the time of sending out this questionnaire you 
and the commissioners were charged with the responsibil­
ity of preparing the venire and you all did not know the 
race of the people to whom you would send the question­
naire?

A That’s correct.
Q You didn’t even concern yourself with that factor.
A No.
Q Now when you got the questionnaire answered by 

whoever answered, then you were aware of their race, 
were you not, if  they answered the question No. 8 on the 
questionnaire?

A We didn’t look too much for the race. All we were 
interested in—

Q But you could have looked.
A We could have, yes.
Q And in fact the people that work for you, the sec­

retarial help, were instructed by commission in preparing



48

the cards, fill all the blanks in the cards, including the 
[fol. 24] one that said race. Isn’t that right?

A Yes.
Q So you recorded the information of whether they 

were white or colored.
A That’s right.
Q And it was only after this recordation was made 

of identifying the race of the parties that you then from 
that list prepared the venire list of four hundred?

A No. The cards were made and attached to the 
questionnaires together with the slip of paper. The ques­
tionnaires that we thought could not serve were more or 
less rejected, and those that we thought could serve were 
all in one stack. I f  we need any names in the box, it 
makes no difference if they’re white or black. They are 
taken and removed and the slip is placed in the general 
venire box.

Q Mr. LeBlanc, I agree with what you just said, but 
you didn’t really answer my question. Let me rephrase it 
in light of what you said. Granted that some of these 
questionnaires and cards that were made from the ques­
tionnaire were rejected. You made a rejection of them 
for one reason or another that you felt they were disquali­
fied. Am I right?

A Yes.
Q Now the remainder constituted answers to ques­

tionnaires, and white cards revealing the race of the 
party. And from this remainder of questionnaires and 
white cards you prepared the list of four hundred for the 
venire.

A That’s right.
Q In fact they didn’t come from any place else; they 

came from that list of white cards.
A That’s right.

[fol. 25] Q So that whether you concerned yourself or 
not, the fact of the race of the party was there apparent 
for you to see on that white card.

A It was, but we didn’t look at that.
Q Well, you either knew it or you could have known 

it.
A We could have.



49

Q And yet you’re unable to say how many white and 
how many colored you got in the four hundred on the 
venire.

A That’s correct.
Q You’d have to make a study of that and give us a 

list of it.
A Yes.
MR. PICCION E: And we do move for that list. Your 

Honor, if I understand right the State has already offered 
the white card and also the questionnaire, so I don’t have 
to offer them again.

THE COURT: That’s right, and the white card we 
agreed to substitute a photostatic copy of it.

MR. PICCION E: I ’d like to make the white card and 
the green card offered by the State a part of my evi­
dence as well. I would have done so if the State would 
not have done so first.

MR. DeBLANC: We have no objection.

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
Q Mr. LeBlanc, when you select the three hundred 

names of the general venire, the rest of these cards are 
still there for you to select from should you need any ad­
ditional names. Is that right?

A That’s correct.
Q You have several thousand names there of people 

[fol. 26] who are available for jury service.
A That’s right.
Q And when you need to replenish the three hundred 

names, you need to make a new list or anything like that, 
then you go back to your cards and your answers to ques­
tionnaires. Is that right?

A That’s right. We keep a file of all of those we think 
are capable of serving, qualifying. Selecting the petit 
juries and grand juries, the moment we have to replenish 
the box we just take all the questionnaires we have and 
put them on the table and they just take them indiscrimi­
nately and replenish your box without any selection.



50

Q Because you know that all these people in your 
opinion are qualified.

A That’s correct.

EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. LOGAN:
Q Mr. LeBlanc—well, first, I ’d like to make the card 

and the questionnaire part of the evidence for Pratt.
THE COURT: So ordered.
Q (By Mr. Logan) Mr. LeBlanc, who are the mem­

bers of the jury commission?
A J .  Alfred Mouton, Mike Donlon, Dr. Carol Mouton, 

Andrus Martinez and myself.
Q Now, are all of those members of the Caucasian 

race?
A Yes.
Q You have no members of the Negro race.
A That’s right.
Q Now, who presents the names to the Judge for sign­

ing the order to make them members of the jury com- 
[fol. 27] mission? Who recommended names to the Judge?

A (No response.)
Q Do you as Clerk of Court do that?
A No.
Q Do you know who does?
A The Judge usually makes his own selection more or 

less or the Judge might get recommendations from the 
Clerk.

Q Did you make any such recommendations?
A No. We lost one last time. We were five and this 

new law requires that we’re only four; five with the Clerk.
Q Well, now, do you know whether or not any names 

of Negroes were submitted to the Judge for appointment 
in the jury commission?

A Some of the jury commissioners been there for 
years. I wouldn’t know about that.

Q Have there ever been Negroes on the jury commis­
sion?

A No.



51

Q Now, who prepares this questionnaire on jury quali­
fications?

A The District Attorney and I went over this.
Q Did the Ju ry  Commission have anything to do 

with—
A We went over this with the jury commission, too. 

I submitted it to them.
Q And you all adopted that form as satisfactory to 

all?
A Yes.
Q Now, what does race have to do with the qualifica­

tions of the jury?
A Race has nothing to do with the qualifications of the 

jury. The reason we have race here is for identification 
of this particular individual.
[fob 28] Q Why is the race put on your jury card?

A This card?
Q Yes, sir.
A This is also for identification, because we don’t 

work with the questionnaires after we draw the general 
venire. We draw from the general venire the slips of 
papers. The slips of papers only has the name and the 
address and the ward and the precinct.

Q You draw from the general venire, but how does 
the card get in— the names get in the general venire?

A The cards are made when we make these cards—
THE COURT: When you say these cards, you’re re­

ferring to a card similar to State Exhibit “A”, right?
THE W ITN ESS: Yes. We have a small slip of paper 

made from these cards. We put them in the general 
venire box and they are drawn. In preparing the list we 
type the name and address from these other slips. I f  
we’re in doubt about this individual, we don’t know if 
he’s white or black, we see her black or colored, then we 
know just what individual we have drawn. We also can 
have the occupation for that particular purpose. A lot 
of people in this section of the country has the same name.

Q (By Mr. Logan) But you do as a fact know 
whether they are white or colored.

A Not from the slip of paper that is drawn from the 
general venire box.



52

Q But from the questionnaires and the cards that’s 
used to make up the slip of paper to put in the general 
venire, you know whether they’re white or colored. Is 
that correct?

A Yes. We can determine that.
Q Now, you stated that you used the registrar’s card 

to make up your list that you make out?
[fol.29] A Yes.

Q And the registrar’s card shows what their race is 
also, doesn’t it?

A Right.
Q Now, you stated that when these questionnaires 

came back you determined who— before you put them, on 
the list you decided if you thought they were qualified.

A That’s right.
Q What did you use in determining whether you 

thought they were qualified?
A He might be a doctor, he might be a school teacher, 

a school bus driver or he might come under the qualifi­
cation that will exempt him.

Q Are the only persons that you consider not quali­
fied were those that were exempted by law?

A No. Some of them didn’t  know how to read and 
write.

Q Other than read and write, did you exclude any­
body else because of education or anything?

A Some of them were extremely nervous, hard of 
hearing.

Q You mean where they showed that on the ques­
tionnaires?

A Yes.
Q Were there any other reasons why they were ex­

cluded?
A There might have been others. They might be 

crippled or they might have put on the remark column 
where he can’t sit a long time. There are a lot of other 
reasons that we thought he might claim exemption.

Q Do you have a list of the people to whom your 
questionnaire was mailed?

A No.



53

Q Was the questionnaire mailed to any women at all? 
[fol. 30] A We have received some that was filled in 
by some ladies. I think one.

Q Did you mail any to any women intentionally or 
did you intentionally exclude women when you mailed 
them?

A We didn’t mail any to the women.
MR. LOGAN: I ’d like to also make part of my evi­

dence the list which the Clerk is to furnish of the four 
hundred on the general venire as to whether they were 
colored or white. I ’d like to make that part of my evi­
dence. And that’s all the questions I have.

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
Q Mr. LeBlanc, you would include the names of any 

women who volunteered service. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And as I understand, the reason you did not in­

clude women is because they are exempted from service 
unless they specifically volunteer and offer their services. 
Is that right?

A Yes.
Q And all of the questions which are contained m 

the questionnaire deals with their qualifications to serve.
A That’s correct.
Q And they were specifically drawn up and w7orded 

to make that determination.
A That’s correct.
Q So if  the questions showed to you that they were 

not qualified, you would put this questionnaire aside. Is 
that correct?

A That’s correct.
Q And those you felt were qualified because of the 

[fol. 31] answers they gave, then you would put them 
as qualified and put their cards in the list of cards in 
the index where you could reach for them whenever you 
need them. Is that correct?

A That’s right.



54

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. LOGAN:

Q Were any invitations or notices sent to women ad­
vising that they had a right to declare their desire to 
serve on the jury?

A Fve discussed that with the Assistant District At­
torney and Fve sent her at different women’s clubs to 
explain to the women the possibility of being on the jury. 
The reason so far that the women have not served is be­
cause facilities and accommodations for ladies were not 
available in the old courthouse. But since the new place 
is being constructed we’re working on the women to sub­
mit names and intention to serve.

Q In the past several years there have been some 
Negroes included in the general venire. Is that right?

A That’s correct.
Q Have there been any repetition of the use of the 

names of the same Negroes through this period of time?
A I f  they didn’t serve— sometime we use them again 

and we use not only Negroes, white also.
Q No, but some that have served have their names 

been replaced on the- general venire?
A After a period of one year we usually replace those 

we want.
Q Has there been more replacing of Negroes on that 

list than white?
A I think if  you go by percentage it’s about even, I 

[fol. 32] would imagine.
Q Percentages of Negroes that have been reput on 

there as there are whites.
A That’s right.
MR. LOGAN: That’s all.
THE COURT: Referring to State Exhibit “B ” which 

is a copy of the questionnaires that you made reference 
to. You testified of course how you went about it and 
the thousands of people that you sent these questionnaires 
out to, and you testified as to receiving some of the ques­
tionnaires back. You further testified that the commis­
sion of which you are a member, the jury commission of 
which you are a member, discarded some of the ques-



55

tionnaires based on the answers received having to do 
with physical, physical impairments, lack of being able 
to read and write, physical impairments and so forth. 
Now in discarding any of these questionnaires, was any 
consideration at all given to whether or not the person 
was white or colored?

THE W ITN ESS: No.
THE COURT: Absolutely none.
THE W IT N E SS: No.
THE COURT: All of the questionnaires that you 

kept after scanning those that were not qualified because 
of the reasons indicated, you made a white card on each 
of those you kept. Is that correct?

THE W ITN ESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Those white cards which are exempli­

fied by State Exhibit “A”, and I ’m not holding you to 
numbers, they go into the thousands I presume.

THE W ITN ESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Now in getting to the three hundred 

[fol. 33] or more names -which are included in your gen­
eral venire, repeat again how do you get those three or 
four hundred names.

THE W ITN ESS: The questionnaires naturally come 
in. We make a white card and we also make another 
slip of paper with the name and the address.

THE COURT: Now, the slip of paper that you re­
ferred to, that’s taken from State Exhibit “A”.

THE W ITN ESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That runs into the thousands.
THE W IT N E SS: Yes.
THE COURT: Now the slip of paper of which we 

don’t have here, that slip of paper, all it includes is the 
name and the address. Is that correct?

THE W ITN ESS: The ward and the precinct.
THE COURT: That slip of paper has no designation 

as to occupation, race and age or anything else.
THE W ITN ESS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: Now from that point, how do you get 

the three or four hundred names that are included in 
your general venire.

THE W ITN ESS: By just putting the questionnaires 
on the table that we think is qualified and just taking



56

them indiscriminately by punching and removing the card 
and the slip of paper and putting them in the general 
venire box.

THE COURT: These three or four hundred people 
that go in the general venire box are placed in completely 
indiscriminately.

THE W ITN ESS: Yes, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, that’s not what he 

said. He said in answer to my question and answer to 
your question that from the questionnaires and the white 
[fol. 34] cards that four hundred for the general venire 
box are picked and put in the general venire box—

THE COURT: You’re wrong, Mr. Piccione.
MR. PICCIONE: Ask him again, Your Honor. He 

didn’t say from the white slip. He said from the ques­
tionnaires.

THE COURT: What about the white slip, Mr. Le- 
Blanc?

THE W ITN ESS: The white slip is attached to these 
in this order, and they are taken indiscriminately—

THE COURT: You mean the white slips are taken—
THE W ITN ESS: Away and placed in the general 

venire box.
THE COURT: At the time that you take the white 

slip which is devoid of any race, what if any knowledge 
does the jury commission have insofar as race is con­
cerned in placing a particular white slip into the venire 
box?

THE W ITN ESS: They don’t look at the question­
naires one way or the other if  they’re white or colored. 
They just take the questionnaires the way it is and put 
it in the box. It makes no difference if they’re white 
or colored.

MR. PICCION E: But if  they look, it’s there on “A” 
and on “B” too.

THE W ITN ESS: On there for purpose of identifica­
tion only.

THE COURT: The question is, does the jury com­
mission consider race in any form in placing the three 
or four hundred names into the venire list?

THE W ITN ESS: It  makes no difference to them.



57

Q (By Mr. Logan) Do they know at the time that 
they place it in there the race if they care to look?

A I don’t think they look, not the way they remove 
them from here and just putting them in the box because 
[fol. 35] they’re working pretty fast and they’ve never 
yet discarded one that I know of.

Q You mean they take them in alphabetical order?
A They’re not alphabetically. They just take them 

the way they come.
THE COURT: How long have you been following this 

system?
THE W IT N E SS: I ’d say about two years.
Q (By Mr. Piccione) Mr. LeBlanc, you had men­

tioned that you had several thousand of these question­
naires that come back. Now you also mentioned that you 
discarded some of these before you ever made a white 
card on them. Isn’t that true?

A Yes.
Q So you cut them down. About how many of them 

have they got left after you cut them down?
A I don’t know. I ’ve kept them all.
Q No, I mean by that about how many thousands or 

hundreds? What does it run to before you select the four 
hundred for the venire list?

A A couple of thousand I wmuld say, Mr. Piccione.
Q All right. In other words, from a couple of thou­

sand more or less you’re going to select four hundred for 
the venire list. Am I right?

A Yes.
Q And all you’re going to put in the venire box is a 

little slip of paper with a name and address. Is that 
right?

A Yes.
Q That’s the slip of paper you referred to. Isn’t that 

right?
A That’s right.
Q Now, then, do you first select the four hundred that 

[fol. 36] you’re going to put in that general venire and 
then make the slips of paper or do you make a slip of 
paper and pin it to all of two thousand cards and ques­
tionnaires?



58

A The slip of paper is made on the two thousand or 
whatever amount we work with. I t ’s already made.

Q You got the two thousand in front of you, don’t 
you?

A Yes.
Q And you have a questionnaire, you got a white 

card and you have a little slip of paper, all of it pinned 
together.

A That’s right.
Q Now, do you then take them as they come or do 

you look at the information contained on the paper and 
then select four hundred?

A We take them as they come.
Q And you’ve seen the commissioners taking a look 

at them, haven’t you?
A They might do that.
Q Well, they do look at them, don’t they?
A It doesn’t  matter.
Q I mean, they do look at the name and they might 

see anything on there. You don’t know what they see.
A That’s right.
Q The proof of the result would be in effect whether 

or not or how many colored or how many white are ac­
tually included in the four hundred selected from the two 
thousand, isn’t that so?

A That’s right.

EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. LOGAN:

0  Mr. LeBlanc, you stated that you have the ward 
and precinct on there. Do you have these questionnaires 
[fol. 37] divided up by wards and precincts and select 
so many from each ward?

A No. When the questionnaires come in they usually 
put on there the ward and the precinct in which they 
live, and then we bill these cards together. But as far 
as selection by ward and precinct, we don’t do that.

Q There’s no distinction on ward and precinct when 
you select the four hundred for the general venire.

A No.



59

THE COURT: The main thing that this Court is in­
terested in knowing is whether any consideration is given 
to the question of race in placing the four hundred or 
three hundred or whatever the amount is in the general 
venire.

THE W IT N E SS: The jury commission makes no dis­
tinction of race and color.

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. LOGAN:
Q Do they know the race or color when they are se­

lected?
THE COURT: He’s testified and I ’m satisfied that 

they’re taking the matter from the beginning of the pro­
ceeding to the time that the three or four hundred names 
get in there, the final step, the question according to his 
testimony, the question of race is not considered.

BY  MR. LOGAN:
Q When they select that slip, do they know or is it 

in front of them to where they can know what the race 
of a person is who they are selecting?

A It  is in front of them, but I don’t think that it 
makes any difference to them because in our discussion 
in the jury commission we well understood each other 
that there would be no distinction made for race.
[fol. 38] Q But you did discuss that question.

A We told them that regardless if  he was white or 
black and he was qualified it made no difference. They 
all know that.

(Informal discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: According to the motion made without 

objection, the Court orders Mr. LeBlanc to prepare and 
furnish a list of the three or four hundred names that 
are presently in the general venire box by race.

The Court further orders the Clerk of Court to furnish 
the number of whites and colored on the cards exempli­
fied by State Exhibit “A”.

MR. LOGAN: I ’d like to make a motion that he also



60

furnish the race of each member of the grand jury panel 
which indicted these accused.

MR. DeBLANC: No objection.
THE COURT: The Court further orders the Clerk of 

Court to furnish the list of a designation of the members 
of the grand jury who indicted the accused by race.

B Y  MR. LOGAN:

Q Under Article 404 it says, “upon entering upon the 
duties the members of the jury commission shall take an 
oath to discharge their duties faithfully”. When they 
were reappointed by the Judge, did they retake the oath 
or do they retake them each year or what?

A They took their oath when they w’ere appointed by 
the Judge.

Q Recently?
A Yes.
MR. LOGAN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Show that the Court on its own me- 

[fol. 39] tion with the acquiescence of both the State and 
defense states primarily in connection with the questions 
propounded by Mr. Logan to Mr. LeBlanc concerning the 
makeup and appointment of the jury commission, this 
Judge states that approximately five years ago when he 
took the bench that this Judge reappointed the then mem­
bers of the jury commission who had been serving for 
some time prior, said members being Mr. Mike Donlon, 
J .  Alfred Mouton, Andrus Martinez, Dr. Carol Mouton 
and Stanford Landry, and that these gentlemen were, as 
the Court recalls, periodically appointed through the years 
until the law concerning jury commissions was changed 
with the new Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure in 
which instance the Clerk of Court who before had been 
an ex-officio member of the commission was now by law 
appointed to be a member of the commission and the 
commission provided for five members as contrary to the 
previous provision. In this instance the Court appointed 
— in this instance in view of the reduced number of the 
jury commission, the Court did not reappoint Mr. Stan­
ford Landry but reappointed the other members the Court 
had referred to by name a moment ago.



61

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. LOGAN:

Q At the time of the selection of the general venire, 
were all five jury commissioners present?

A Yes.
Q And do you know whether or not of your own 

knowledge whether or not the notice was sent to all of 
the commissioners as required by the statute?

A Right.
Q I t  was?
A It  was.

[fol. 40] MR. LOGAN: That’s all the questions I have. 

(Witness excused)

MR, PICCIONE: Mr. Landry again, please. 
Thereupon,

ER A STE R. LANDRY

was recalled as a witness, and having been previously 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY  MR. PICCION E:

Q Mr. Landry, have you any knowledge of the popu­
lation of Lafayette Parish? Do you know what it is?

A The population?
Q Yes, sir.
A It must be around a hundred thousand.
Q And of that population, do you have a knowledge 

bearing upon the proportion of colored people as com­
pared to the white people in the population?

A Well, no, that I don’t have. But I have a per­
centage of the State—

Q Of the entire State?
A Yes.
Q But not of Lafayette Parish.
A Each Parish.
Q What is the statistics that you’re looking at there?



62

A That’s a report from the Board of Registration in 
Baton Rouge.

Q In other words, it’s an arm of the State of Lou­
isiana. Isn’t that right?

A Yes.
Q I t ’s a record of an agency of the State of Louisiana, 

ffol. 41] A That’s right, Board of Registration.
THE COURT: Off the record.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

MR. LOGAN: I ’d like to make it a part of the record 
for Pratt and we’ll mark it Exhibit “D”.

MR. PICCION E: I offer it in evidence, Your Honor, 
as part of Alexander’s case.

THE COURT: And what is it?
MR. LOGAN: I t ’s the blank registration card from 

which Oliver LeBlanc obtained names to mail out his 
questionnaires.

MR. DeBLANC: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be admitted.

(Witness excused)
MR. PICCIONE: Miss Agnes Felix.

Thereupon,
AGNES F E L IX

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

B Y  MR. PICCION E:

Q What is your name, please.
A Agnes Felix.
Q Where do you live?
A 100 Gilman Road.
Q Miss Felix, were you called as a witness before the 

grand jury in September, 1967, that indicted your son 
Claude Alexander?

A Yes, I did.
Q Did you testify before that grand jury?



63

A Yes, I did.
[fol. 42] Q Did you look at the grand jury?

A Yes, I did.
Q Were there any women on the grand jury?
A No, sir.
Q Were there any colored people on the grand jury? 
A No, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: That’s all.

EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. DeBLANC:

Q You were in that room and you didn’t see any 
women in that room?

A Those who was typing.
Q But you didn’t know whether they were members 

of the grand jury or not, did you?
A Yes, I did.
Q You saw some women in the grand jury room?
A Yes. They had one sitting right next to me.
Q Okay. So you did see some women in the grand 

jury room.
A She was the one that was doing the typing. And 

then they had another one sitting way in the back.
Q They had two women in the grand jury.
A Two women.
Q Now, they were all white?
A They were all white.
Q Do you know what an octoroon is?
A No, I don’t.
Q An octoroon is a person who has one-eighth Negro 

blood. Do you know whether there were any octoroons in 
that room?

A No,
Q You don’t know that.

[fol. 43] A I sure don’t.
Q Do you know whether there were any quadroons? 
A (No response.)
Q Do you know what a quadroon is?
A I know they was all white.
Q They looked like they were all white to you?



64

A They were all white.
Q But can you tell a quadroon from—
A All I can say is they were all white.
Q In your opinion they were all white.
A I know they were.
Q How do you know that?
A Well, I know. I was looking at them.
Q You studied books on—
A I don’t  have to study books to know white from 

colored.
Q So you’re sure about that.
A They were all white.
Q And you don’t know what a quadroon is.
A I don’t want to know that. But I still say they 

were all white.
Q Do you know what a mulatto is?
A No.
Q You don’t know what—
A I can tell you they were all white.
Q So you don’t know whether there was any mulatto 

on there.
A I don’t guess I ’m crazy. I could see they were all 

white.
Q Answer the question.
A Well, I ’m answering the question. They was all 

white.
Q Do you know whether there were any mulattoes on 

there?
[fob 44] A They were white.

MR. DeBLANC: I wish she’d answer the question, 
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Answer if you know.
THE W ITN ESS: Well, all I can say they were all 

white. I didn’t see no mulatto.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) You just said you didn’t know 

what a mulatto was. Isn’t  that right?
A Well, of course I know what a mulatto is.
Q I thought you just said— the record shows that 

you said you didn’t know what a mulatto was.
A I know they were all white.
MR. DeBLANC: We have no further questions from 

this witness.



65

EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCIONE:

Q You know Miss Gilfoil the Assistant District At­
torney?

A Yes, I do.
Q Did she question you?
A Yes, she did.
Q And was she one of the women you just referred 

to as being present in the grand jury?
A Yes.
Q And the only other woman you said was that sec­

retary taking down the notes.
A Taking down the notes.
MR. PICCIONE: Thank you.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

(Witness excused)
THE COURT: Show that the record is left open for 

[fol. 45] the reports previously ordered and inclusion in 
the record as to the white,/colored ratio or population in 
the Parish of Lafayette.

EVIDEN CE CLOSED

*  *  *  #

[fol. 426] MR. DeBLANC: The State announces out 
of the presence of the jury that it intends to introduce 
in evidence and through cross examination of the accused 
a confession and inculpatory statement which was made 
by the accused just a little while after the occurrence of 
the offense, and that it now announces its intention to 
show the voluntary nature of the confession and also 
[fol. 427] that the confession or statement was given by 
the accused and that at that time, at no time, was his 
constitutional rights violated.

MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, to which declared in­
tention the defense objects on the ground that the alleged 
confession is not proper, in the first place, in the manner 
in which it was taken and is against the constitutional



66

rights of the accused and is particularly objectionable 
because it is against Miranda -vs- Arizona on the various 
warnings that should have been given thoroughly to him 
and on having consisted of questions not so much as an­
swers and having consisted of something taken down 
which was not approved by the witness, by the defend­
ant, which was not signed by the defendant at a time 
when he was in custody, in handcuffs, in the presence of 
hostile officers, at a time when his request to speak to 
his mother was not honored, at a time when he was under 
the pressures of fear and under police custody and other­
wise in violation of Miranda, and that the fruits of such 
an illegal procedure are at no time admissible, not now, 
not on direct. It is certainly not admissible now on cross 
examination.

THE COURT: Is this a written statement or oral?
MR. DeBLANC: This is an oral statement.
THE COURT: Was this statement reduced to writ­

ing?
MR. DeBLANC: This statement was reduced to writ­

ing. The State will show the statement was reduced to 
writing, but was not signed by the accused, but that it 
was read by the accused, read to him and read by him, 
and that he approved of it but did not sign it.

THE COURT: I t ’s the intention of the State then to 
introduce into evidence the statement and also as I un- 
[fol. 428] derstand it to question the Defendant on the 
subject. Is that right?

MR. DeBLANC: On the subject as to whether or not 
they complied with the Louisiana law on the question of 
the voluntary nature of the confession or statement, in­
culpatory or exculpatory, and that it complied also with 
the Supreme Court decision and especially the case of 
Miranda.

MR. PICCION E: Of course, Your Honor, our objec­
tion is additionally on the ground that it is not legally 
taken either under State law or Federal lav/, that it is 
not the statement of the accused and that’s why he didn’t 
sign it, but it’s the statement of officers of what they 
would like for him to have said.



67

THE COURT: All right. Gentlemen, then, I would 
say that we’re now ready for the State to proceed in its 
effort to show the validity of the statement, confession, 
inculpatory or exculpatory statement, whatever it may be.

The Court will now hear evidence on that subject to 
determine whether or not this statement, whatever its 
form is, complies with the recent United States Supreme 
Court decisions and particularly Miranda which I think 
is the last expression of the Supreme Court on that sub­
ject.

Is the State now ready to proceed?
MR. DeBLANC: The State now calls Capt. Picard.

EXAMINATION ON VALID ITY OF STATEM EN T 

Thereupon,
SH IRLEY PICARD

was recalled as a witness, and having previously been 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

D IRECT EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
[fol. 429] Q State your name, please, sir.

A Shirley Picard.
Q And you are the same person who testified before 

in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you know the accused Claude Alexander?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you see him in this courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you point him out to the court?
A Next to Mr. Piccione.
Q Now, did you have occasion to see him and talk to 

him. on September the 4th last year?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was that?
A In the detective’s office, City Police Station.



68

Q What time of the day or night was that?
A Approximately two thirty a.m.
Q How long did you talk to him there?
A Possibly an hour.
MR. PICCIONE: Of course, Your Honor, I believe 

that it’s clear that my objection extends to all of this 
testimony.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Who was there when you 
talked to him?

A Officer Sidney Broussard and Officer Navarre, An­
thony Navarre.

Q Were they there the entire time or part of the 
time?

A To the best of my knowledge they were, sir.
Q What?

[fol. 430] A They were there.
Q They were there at the time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were they there during the entire hour you were 

talking with him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now while you were talking to him, did he make 

any statement to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was this statement that he gave to you an oral 

statement or a written statement?
A Oral.
Q This statement which he gave, did you reduce it to 

writing?
A Yes, sir.
Q What type of writing?
A Typewritten.
Q Who reduced it to writing? Who wrote it out?
A I did.
Q Now at the time that he made this statement to 

you, did you or anyone else in your presence promise him 
anything?

A No, sir.



69

Q Did you or anyone else in your presence menace 
him, intimidate him or threaten him in any manner to 
cause him to give you a statement you said he gave?

MR. PICCION E: Excuse me, Your Honor. I object 
to the question as containing conclusions and being lead­
ing. The witness can be asked what happened and we’ll 
find out the facts from the lips of the witness rather 
than the conclusions from the lips of the asker, the ques­
tioner.
[fol. 431] THE COURT: I think that the State has the 
right to lay the proper foundation to determine the va­
lidity of it. The State certainly has a right to determine 
whether or not both the State law and the Federal law has 
been covered. I don’t think it’s leading. I ’ll overrule your 
objection.

MR. PICCIONE: I ’d like to reserve a bill making a 
part of it the question of the District Attorney and the 
objection of counsel and ruling of the Court.

THE COURT: All right, let a bill be reserved.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Did you or anyone else in your 

presence intimidate him in any way to cause him to give 
you the statement that you said he gave?

A No, sir.
Q Did any person in your presence or yourself subject 

Claude Alexander to any treatment designed by effect on 
body or mind to compel him to confess?

MR. PICCIONE: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling.
MR. PICCION E: Same bill of exception.
THE COURT: All right.
THE W ITN ESS: No, sir.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) This statement that he gave 

you on that day, was this statement given freely and 
voluntarily?

A Yes, sir.
MR. PICCION E: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling and let a bill be reserved.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Are you familiar with what is 

known now as the Miranda warning?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you or someone else give him that warning?



70

[fol. 432] MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, I object to 
the continued nature of the leading questions. In fact the 
last question asked a legal question and I don’t believe—

THE COURT: I think possibly you’re right on that, 
Mr. Piccione.

You may ask him what he did in that connection.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) What did you do in connection 

with what is now known as the Miranda warning?
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor. I don’t  think that the 

witness has been established as knowing what the Miranda 
warning is, and whether he does or not would not neces­
sarily have any relevancy as to what he did on the occa­
sion on taking the statement.

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Are you familiar with the Mi­
randa case, the warning?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what did you tell him, if anything?
A I advised him he had the right to remain silent, 

that anything he said could be used against him in court, 
that he was entitled to an attorney, and if he couldn’t 
afford an attorney one would be offered to him, and also 
that he had the right to stop talking at any time he felt 
like it.

And I also reached over my desk, I had a little type­
writer table, I handed him the phone personally over my 
desk for him to use the phone and he said he didn’t want 
to use it.

Q In other words, you gave him a chance to make a 
phone call.

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, tell the Court just exactly what were the facts 

upon which, without telling us what the statement is, the 
[fol. 433] facts upon which led up to your getting this 
statement from him.

A I asked him what happened in the park and he ex­
plained it to me, what took place in Girard Park.

Q Well, that was the question that you asked the ac­
cused?

A Yes, sir.
Q And he told you what happened in the park?
A Yes, sir.



71

Q Then how did you put it down?
A At first I was writing it down, hand writing it on 

a piece of paper.
Q And where were you getting the information to 

write?
A From Alexander.
Q He gave you the information?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after you got it written down with a pencil, 

what did you do?
A I told him that I was going to type it on the type­

writer. He said, “All right”. And after I finished typing 
it I read it to him, and after I read it to him I handed it 
to him and he looked at it for a while and he said, “That’s 
exactly what happened”.

Q And he didn’t sign it?
A No, sir.
Q Did he say why he wouldn’t sign it?
A He asked me where his shoes were and I told him 

I didn’t know. He asked me again, I said, “I don’t know”. 
He said, “I ’m not signing anything until I get my shoes”, 
and he threw the pencil down.

MR. DeBLANC: We’re tendering the witness to de­
termine whether or not the statement which the man is 
[fol. 434] alleged to have given is true and voluntary and 
whether it complied with the constitution.

CROSS EXAMINATION

B Y  MR. PICCIONE:
Q Captain, where did this take place?
A In the detective’s office, my office, at the City Police 

Station.
Q On Pierce Street?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time of day was that?
A About two thirty a.m. in the morning.
Q Well, now, you asked him some questions?
A I asked him what took place in the park.
Q You were interrogating him, weren’t you?



72

A Not at first. I asked him what happened and he 
told me.

Q You were questioning him?
A I asked him what happened in Girard Park.
Q I say, were you asking him questions?
A The only question I asked him was that.
Q Now, he had his handcuffs on?
A No, sir.
Q He didn’t have his handcuffs on?
A No, sir.
Q Was he under arrest?
A Yes, sir.
Q He was in custody, wasn’t  he?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you sit him down in that room?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 435] Q You sat down?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you remember when one of the other offi­

cers brought in coffee?
A No, sir.
Q You don’t remember one of the other officers bring­

ing in coffee?
A No, sir.
Q Well, do you remember that after one officer did 

bring in something that they left and only you and Claude 
Alexander were in the room alone?

A No, sir.
Q Do you deny that you and Claude Alexander were 

in the room alone when these questions and answers were 
given, if  any answers?

A Yes, sir.
Q You deny that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you deny that for most of the time the other 

officers were not anywhere near that room, they were out­
side that room?

A Yes, sir.
Q You deny that?
A Yes, sir.



73

Q Is it not a fact that Claude Alexander told you he 
wanted to call his mother?

A No, sir.
Q And you failed to let him do so?
A No, sir. I handed him the phone, sir.
Q You deny that you did not let him call his mother? 

[fol. 436] A He did not ask to call his mother.
Q And you say that Claude Alexander said, “That’s 

what happened”, but he yet refused to sign the paper 
that you drew up. Is that right, sir?

A. Yes sir1*
Q He agreed to it but he didn’t agree to it. Is that 

right, sir?
A He did not sign it, sir.
Q He didn’t  sign it.
A No, sir.
Q You signed it.
A. Yes sir.
Q And you so stated on your typewritten version that 

he refused to sign it.
A Yes, sir.
Q You asked him to sign it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And he refused. Is that right?
A I handed him the pen and he started to sign it. 

He said, “I want my shoes”. I said, “I don’t  know where 
your shoes are”. He asked me again and I said, I don t 
know where your shoes are”. Then he said, “I’m not sign­
ing anything until I get my shoes”, and he threw the pen 
down. ‘ And I advised him that he didn’t have to sign it.

Q Think back very carefully. When you showed him 
this statement, did he tell you this was not his statement, 
it was your statement?

A No, sir.
Q And for that reason he refused to sign it.
A No, sir.

[fol. 437] Q Now, what was the first question you
asked him? . .

A I asked him what happened in the park, in Girard
Park.



74

Q All right. Now, how long after that did you give 
him any warning?

A I gave him the warnings before 1 talked to him.
Q What was the first question you asked him?
A The first question?
Q Yes, sir.
A I told him— I advised him of his rights, then I 

asked him what took place in Girard Park.
Q Now, Capt. Picard, think very carefully. Did you 

tell him he had a right to consult an attorney before giv­
ing any statement?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you told him that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, think very carefully on this one. Did you 

tell him that if he couldn’t afford, if he didn’t have the 
money, and couldn’t afford to hire a lawyer that the Court 
would appoint one for him before he had to discuss it 
and that lawyer could be present before you could ques­
tion him and he wouldn’t have to answer anything?

A I advised him that if he couldn’t afford an attorney 
that one would be brought for him.

Q Did you tell him that?
A Yes, sir.
Q You say that under oath, Captain?
A Yes, sir.
Q You’re not just saying that to try to get this con­

fession in, are you?
[fob 438] A No, sir; no, sir.

Q It’s not a desperation at the last minute to qualify 
a confession that’s rotten from the beginning?

A No, sir.
Q You know that Miranda case pretty well, don’t 

you?
A I ’ve heard it pretty much, yes, sir.
Q You’ve studied it?
A I read about it.
Q You studied it since you took that statement?
A I heard about it before the statement.
Q Who had this sheet for a voluntary statement 

printed? Did you have it printed?



75

A No, sir, the Lafayette Police Department.
Q Who worded the statement?
A Lafayette Police Department I presume.
Q Are those the words printed on there that you read 

to Claude Alexander?
A I did not read him the words on the statement, sir.
Q Did you tell him words to that effect?
A I advised him of his rights.
Q Did you tell him words to the effect of this state­

ment?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that what you went by, the words on this state­

ment?
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t use this to refresh your memory?
A No, sir.
Q Do the words on this statement say anything about 

him being advised that if  he did not have the money to 
hire a lawyer one would be appointed for him by the 
State?

A No, sir.
[fol. 439] Q It doesn’t say that, does it?

A No, sir.
Q But you say you said it.
A I said it, yes, sir.
Q Is it not a fact that in asking_ these questions you 

were leading him all the time saying “wasn’t it this 
way”, “didn’t you meet so and so”, “didn’t you meet Allen 
Breaux”, “didn’t you all go in the park”, “didn’t  you all 
see the boy and the girl”, “didn’t you all say let’s go get 
them”, “didn’t you all have relations with the girl”. Isn’t 
that the way it was?

A No, sir.
Q And when Claude Alexander wouldn’t answer, did 

you put down in substance the question as though he had 
affirmed it?

A No, sir.
Q As though he had approved your question?
A No, sir.
Q Isn’t it a fact that the facts were contained in your 

questions, not in his answers?



76

A No, sir.
Q Now, Captain, is it not a fact that you repeatedly 

asked Claude Alexander if he had not raped the girl? 
You did that more than one time, you remember that?

A No, sir.
Q You deny that you asked him several times did he 

rape the girl?
A No, sir.
Q Did he not answer you repeatedly that he did not 

rape the girl?
A He never did state that he raped her.
Q He didn’t say that he did?

[fol. 440] A No, sir.
Q Well, did he say he had intercourse with her?
A He said he was about to.
Q Now my question is this, did he not repeatedly 

say—
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Piccione. I don’t mean 

to cut you, but just for clarification, it seems that this 
hearing at this time is restricted— let me put it this way. 
Let me ask both of your opinions. Is it encumbent upon 
the Court at this time to be appraised of what the state­
ment was or what its content was? I t ’s my impression 
that we’re here now for the purpose of determining 
whether or not this accused was given the proper warn­
ing as illustrated in the Miranda case prior to any state­
ment that he made.

I think what this Court will be called upon to do is 
to determine whether or not the statement, exculpatory 
or inculpatory or oral or written, confession, was given 
freely and voluntary and under the warnings as indi­
cated by the United States Supreme Court. I doubt 
whether or not this Court wants to hear what the state­
ment was or the methods of interrogation at this time.

(Argument off the record.)

THE COURT: Miranda says nothing except that in­
terrogation— and Miranda presupposes that interrogation 
cannot commence until such time as the proper warnings, 
three or four or five steps ahead of it, are given.



77

Assuming that I would allow this to go before the jury, 
I ’m not indicating one way or the other, I want to hear 
everything including the accused on this, then I think 
you can go into every facet of it before the jury. This 
Court is only interested in knowing whether or not this 
[fob 441] man was assured of his constitutional rights 
under Miranda.

(Argument off the record.)
Q (By Mr. Piccione) Capt. Picard, what kind of a 

chair was Alexander sitting in when you questioned him?
A A chair with a padded back.
Q And you were in the chair opposite him?
A Yes, sir, across the desk.
Q And where was Sidney Broussard sitting?
A Sidney was— it would be to my right.
Q Was he standing up or sitting?
A He was sitting. And Navarre would be to my left.
Q He had his pistol on?
A Yes, sir.
Q You had your pistol—
A I couldn’t answer that, sir. He was in plain clothes.
Q Was Officer Navarre there?
A Officer Navarre was there.
Q Was he standing up or sitting down?
A He was sitting down at one time and he stood up.
Q How close was he to Alexander?
A Oh, the chair next.
Q He had his pistol on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, were there any friends of Claude Alexander 

in that room at that time?
A Sidney Broussard had his pistol on too.
Q Were any friends of Claude Alexander in that room 

at that time?
A No, sir.
Q So everybody in there were hostile towards him. Is 

[fob 442] that right?
MR. DeBLANC: We object to that, Your Honor.

(Argument off the record.)



78

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Capt. Picard, you said that you 
told him something about his right to remain silent?

A Yes, sir.
Q And did he remain quiet and gave you no answer 

when you told him that?
A Not during that saying, no, sir.
Q In other words, he didn’t  say anything. You did 

the talking, didn’t you?
A After I advised him of his rights I said, “What 

happened in the park?”, and he told me.
Q In other words, you were advising him of his rights 

and telling him everything and he made no response. Is 
that right, sir?

A After I advised him of his rights I asked him what 
happened in the park and he told me.

Q Right. In other words, the first thing he started to 
say was when he began to tell you what happened in the 
park. Is that correct?

A He started from the beginning, yes, sir.
Q All right, sir. In other words, the first thing he 

said was when he started from the beginning of what 
happened in the park. Is that correct, sir?

A No, sir—
Q So that at no time did you get an answer from him 

on any election by him or any decision by him of whether 
he would freely talk. Is that right?

A When I asked him what happened in the park— 
[fol. 443] Q He started telling you.

A Yes, sir.
Q But he didn’t tell you that yes, he would agree to 

talk, did he?
A No, he just started talking.
Q All right, sir. And is it also correct that he just 

started talking about what happened in the woods and he 
never did respond to what you said about his rights to 
have a lawyer? He didn’t say anything to the effect, 
“Well, I ’ll do without a lawyer. Whether or not I can 
afford one or whether the State will appoint one for me 
I ’ll do without one”.

A He didn’t ask for an attorney.



79

Q He just kept silent. Is that right, sir?
A He kept silent until he told me what happened in 

the park.
Q And as far as you could tell, do you even know 

that he really heard and concentrated and understood 
what you said to him about his right to counsel and if he 
couldn’t afford one because he was an indigent that he 
would have one appointed by the State?

A I don’t know what his thinking was.
Q In other words, he didn’t express his thinking, did 

he?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q He said nothing to show you the state of his mind 

in response to your warnings until he began to say what 
occurred in the park, isn’t that right, sir?

A No, sir.
MR. PICCION E: I ’ll rest on that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does the State have any redirect on 

that subject?
[fol. 444]

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
Q Have you had— did you take any kind of training 

insofar as knowing how to conduct interrogations are 
concerned?

A We had schooling, yes, sir.
Q What school have you been to?
A We had a few classes in the Inservice Training, 

and we went to Baton Rouge Police Department three 
days on investigation and in New Orleans, the Police 
Department.

Q Were some of the classes relative to interrogation 
of a—

A We had some schooling.
Q And what were some of the things they told you at 

those classes insofar as correct interrogation of suspects 
were concerned?

A F irst of all expressing the right— you have to notify 
the person arrested of his rights.



80

Q What did they tell you you had to do? What 
rights—

A To remain silent— the last schooling I went to was 
about ten years ago.

Q Well, have you had occasion to discuss the matter 
of correct interrogation of suspects since that time?

A Only of what we read in the books, sir.
Q Have you had occasion to read in the books about 

correct interrogation to comply with Supreme Court deci­
sions?

A The Miranda case and the Escobeda.
Q You’re familiar with that, the requirements?
A Yes, sir.
Q And have you had occasion to go to any monthly 

meetings of an organization known as the Fifteenth Ju- 
[fol. 445] dicial District Peace Officer Association and 
heard lectures on that?

A I didn’t make that, sir.
Q You didn’t make that?
A No, sir.
Q Now after you gave him what you said was the 

correct warning of his rights, then what did he say inso­
far as understanding what he said?

MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, I object to that because 
he already testified that he didn’t say anything until he 
started talking about what happened in the park.

THE COURT: He’s under redirect. I ’ll overrule the 
objection. The Court wants to get to the bottom of it.

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) When you told him that, what 
did you do then? Did you stop a while? What did he do?

A After I told him of his rights I looked at him and 
I said, “What happened in the park?”,— that’s after I 
handed him the phone to use the phone.

Q But before you asked him what happened in the 
park you told him—-you gave him the warning—

MR. PICCIONE: I object to the leading question, 
Your Honor.

THE COURT: I ’ll sustain that.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) At the time that you asked 

him what happened in the park, when in respect to that 
time had you given him the warning?



81

A Ju st before I advised him of his rights.
Q What did he say when you offered him the phone?
A He said he didn’t want to use it.
Q Did you offer him the phone before you started 

questioning him?
[fol. 446] A I asked him if he wanted to use it.

Q Before you started questioning him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he seem to understand what you were saying 

when you advised him of his rights?
MR. PICCIONE: I object to that, Your Honor, as to 

what the accused understood.
THE COURT: You may state what your observation 

was.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Did he appear to understand 

what you said?
A To me he did, sir.
MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.

RECROSS EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCION E:
Q When you said “to you”, in other words you’re 

acknowledging that that’s your opinion. Is that right?
A It  struck me that he understood what I was telling 

him.
Q That’s your opinion.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, Capt. Picard, I remind you that you are an 

officer of the law and the first type of person that should 
respect that law and I remind you that you’re under oath 
and I as you to think carefully on this question. Did 
you on that occasion before you proceeded to discuss 
what happened in the park, did Claude Alexander say 
to you in effect or words to the effect, “Take me to the 
ja il”— “take me to ja il so I can get some sleep”, words 
to that effect?

A No, sir.
Q Now, think about this. And do you remember tell­

ing him, “Not until you tell me what happened” ?



82

[fol. 447] A No, sir.
Q Now, you’ve thought about that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you deny that?
A Yes, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: No further questions, Your Honor.
MR. DeBLANC: That’s all.

(Witness excused)
THE COURT: Gentlemen, it’s 12:00 o’clock. Would 

you all agree rather then bring the jury back just to 
have the Bailiff—

MR. PICCIONE: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. We’ll recess until 1:30.

(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 o’clock
p.m., of the same day.)

[fol. 448] A FT E R  RECESS

(The trial reconvened at 1:30 o’clock p.m., pursuant
to the taking of recess.)
(Informal discussion off the record.)

MR. PICCIONE: We’d like to add to our objection of 
the pro-offered confession under which we are now getting 
the preliminaries this additional ground for our objection, 
Your Honor, that the State gave me written notice before 
the commencement of the trial and before the State’s open­
ing statement that it intended to use a confession and we 
received this notice of their intention.

The State put its case on the stand, the State did not 
endeavor to bring in the oral statement now sought to be 
introduced in evidence by way of cross examination of 
the accused.

The State rested its case without having made any 
mention of that statement that I was notified of an intent 
to be used by the State. The State rested is case without 
ever even trying to get it in and I object further on the 
ground that it now comes too late, as well as the previous 
grounds.

(Argument off the record.)



83

THE COURT: Let the objection be noted. Of course 
the outcome of that objection would depend of course upon 
whether or not the Court allows reference to the state­
ment or introduction of the statement or both, either by 
way of direct testimony or by way of cross examination.

It would appear to me however, assuming that the state­
ment would be admitted, assuming that it would be, it 
would seem to me that if  it is legal, and the Court is by no 
means saying that at this time because the Court hasn’t 
heard all the evidence on it, but it would seem to me that 
[fob 449] the State would have the right to use it on the 
cross examination of the accused inasmuch as the accused 
has taken the stand.

So that would be my impression at this time. How­
ever, gentlemen, it all depends of course upon what the 
ruling of the Court is as to its admissibility in the first 
place.

MR. DeBLANC: The State now calls to the stand Sid­
ney Broussard, Officer Sidney Broussard.
Thereupon,

SIDNEY JO SEPH  BROUSSARD, JR .

was recalled as a witness, and having previously been 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
Q Officer Broussard, do you know the accused Claude 

Alexander?
A Yes, sir, I know him.
Q You see him in court?
A Yes, sir.
Q Point him out to the Court, please.
A Right next to Mr. Piccione.
Q Now, did you have occasion to see Claude Alexander 

at the police station on the early morning hours of Sep­
tember the 4th last year?

A Yes, I did.
Q Where was that at the police station?



84

A In the detective room. He was in the room with 
Capt. Picard.

Q Would you describe that room, what it looks like? 
The width, the length and all that.
[fol. 450] A Oh, it would be approximately, Fd say, 
twelve by fourteen probably.

Q What is it used for?
A For interrogation purposes. It’s used by the de­

tective division.
Q Is that somebody’s office?
A Right. It’s Capt. Picard’s.
Q That’s Capt. Picard’s personal office?
A Well, his division, detective division office.
Q Is there a desk in that office?
A Right.
Q Who uses that office regularly?
A Capt, Picard.
Q And where’s this police station located?
A Off of— on South Pierce Street.
Q What floor is that on?
A First floor.
Q It’s a one story building?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is this connected with the jail there?
A No, sir, it’s not.
Q There’s no ja il around there?
A No, sir.
Q What’s in that building besides this office here?
A Well, we have the radio room, ID room, men’s and 

ladies’ restroom, Chief of Police’s office, Inspector’s office, 
a small traffic department office, the kitchen, a lounge you 
can say, where we drink coffee; a coffee room.

Q It’s more or less of an office building. Is that right? 
A Right.

[fol. 451] Q Is that room smaller or larger than the 
rest of the offices?

A I wouldn’t say it’s any smaller than the rest. I t’s 
about the same as most of the rooms.

Q What kind of furniture do you have in there?
A Well, we have approximately two chairs, a desk and 

another chair behind the desk.



85

Q Now, who was in there when you saw Claude Alex­
ander?

A Capt. Picard,
Q Could you state about what time that was?
A I ’d say approximately two thirty.
Q Now, could you describe the accused, how did he 

look, how was he dressed? Could you?
A Well, he was dressed in a white T shirt, a dirty 

white T shirt, and a pair of brown pants when I seen him.
Q Now, did you hear any conversation between him 

and Capt. Picard?
A I heard Capt. Picard advise him of his rights.
Q Well, how did he advise him of his rights? What 

did he tell him?
A Well, he advised Claude Alexander that he had to 

understand his rights, that his rights were—he had the 
right to remain silent, that anything said against him 
could be used in court, he had a right to an attorney, if 
he didn’t have an attorney one would be appointed to him, 
and he had the right to make a phone call, and also he had 
the right to— if he would answer questions, he had the 
right to stop answering questions any time he pleased.

Q Well, you heard him say that to Alexander?
A Correct.

[fol. 452] Q What did Alexander say, if  anything, to 
this?

A He didn’t answer out loud, orally. He sort of 
nodded his head.

Q And do you know if you or anyone else in your 
presence promised him anything to make him give the 
statement he’s supposed to have given?

A No, sir.
Q Did you or anyone else in your presence intimidate 

him in any way to cause him to give that statement?
A No, sir, we didn’t.
Q Did you or anyone else place him in fear of duress—
MR. PICCION E: Objected to, Your Honor, as contain­

ing conclusions. He can ask the witness what was done 
and what happened.

THE COURT: I think I ruled on that this morning 
or a similar objection. I indicated that the State had a 
right to qualify the witnesses under the code—



86

MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, my objection is that 
the questions are containing conclusions and that the facts 
ought to be there before the conclusion is there.

THE COURT: I ’ll overrule your objection.
MR. PICCIONE: I ’d like to reserve a bill on that, 

Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let a bill be reserved.
MR. DeBLANC: Read the question to him.

(The pending question was read by the Reporter as 
above recorded.)

THE W ITN ESS: No, sir, we didn’t.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Let me finish the question. Did 

you or anyone else place him in fear of duress to cause 
[fol. 453] him to give you the statement he gave to Capt. 
Picard?

A No, sir.
Q Did you or anyone else menace him or threaten him 

in any way to make him give that statement?
MR. PICCIONE: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling, and let a bill be reserved.
THE W ITN ESS: No, sir.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Did you or anyone else subject 

him to any treatment designed by effect on body or mind to 
compel a confession?

MR. PICCIONE: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling, and let a bill be reserved.
THE W ITN ESS: No, sir.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) This statement that you say he 

gave, you said he gave a statement to Capt. Picard, that 
statement was then a free and voluntary statement?

MR. PICCIONE: Same objection, Your Honor. That’s 
a conclusion that the Court has to make and it’s con­
tained in a question that is leading.

THE COURT: I ’ll overrule the objection.
MR. PICCION E: I reserve my bill.
THE COURT: Let a bill be reserved.
THE W ITN ESS: Yes, it was.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Now when you got there, what 

was going on insofar as the conversation between Capt. 
Picard and Claude Alexander?



87

A None that I remember. In other words, when I 
walked into the room Capt. Picard was just sitting down 
in his chair.

Q They weren’t talking to each other?
A Not that I recall.

[fol. 454] Q Okay. Now, then what was the first thing 
you heard Capt. Picard say insofar as the conversation 
to this man?

A The first thing he said?
Q How did this start off?
A Well, Capt. Picard stated that he had to understand 

his rights and he proceeded to advise him of his rights.
Q All right. Now after that and after he nodded, 

what happened then?
A Capt. Picard asked him what happened in the park.
Q And did he answer that question?
A Yes, sir, he did.
Q And was it then that he gave the statement that 

he gave?
A Correct.
Q Now, were you there for the entire statement or 

part of it?
A I was there for the entire statement.
Q Was anyone else there while he was giving that 

statement?
A Not that I recall, not the entire statement. I re­

member some officers walking in and out. I mean, the 
door opening.

Q Now, we heard you say that he told him that he was 
entitled to make a phone call. Did he make a phone call?

A No, sir. He said he didn’t  want to make a phone 
call.

Q Well, how was it offered to him?
A Capt. Picard advised him that he had a right to 

make a phone call and Capt. Picard picked up the phone 
and pushed it across the desk and Claude Alexander 
said that he didn’t want to make a phone call.

Q Now the statement that he made, that you say he 
made, was it a written or oral statement?
[fol. 455] A An oral statement.

Q Was it reduced to writing?



88

A Yes, sir.
Q Who reduced it to writing?
A Capt. Picard.
Q How?
A While he was giving the statement, he took down 

notes.
Q In longhand with a pencil?
A Correct, and then he typed it up.
Q Who typed it up?
A Capt. Picard did, sir.
Q And after he typed it up, what did he do with it?
A He read it out loud to Claude Alexander.
Q And then after he read it out loud to Alexander, 

what did he do?
A He offered the statement to Claude Alexander to 

have him sign it.
Q Well, what did Alexander do?
A He said that being that we couldn’t give him his 

shoes he wouldn’t sign the statement.
Q Did Alexander indicate to you that he understood 

what Capt. Picard told him concerning his rights?
MR. PICCIONE: I object to that as being leading, 

Your Honor, and—
THE COURT: I ’ll sustain that objection.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Well, after he explained his 

rights, did Alexander say anything or do anything?
A After his rights were explained, the only thing—he 

didn’t  say anything. He just nodded his head.
MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.

[fol. 456] CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCIONE:

Q Mr. Broussard, you remember that night that you 
had hit this man on the head with your gun?

A No, sir.
Q You don’t remember that?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know how he got the blackeye on his left 

eye?



89

A Not that I know of.
Q Oh, you mean you didn’t  see the blackeye on his 

left eye?
A No, sir, I didn’t notice.
Q You didn’t know about that?
A No, sir.
Q You did drop your gun on the pavement, didn’t you, 

sir?
A Correct.
Q And that was when you were in first contact with 

this man, isn’t it?
A No, sir.
Q This was not when you came in contact with him?
A No, sir. I hadn’t touched him at any time I 

dropped the gun.
Q You dropped your gun before you came in contact 

with him?
A I dropped my gun after I had placed him under 

arrest and he was lying face down.
0  Now, you’ve attempted to state what Capt. Picard 

said to Claude Alexander. Now, let me see if  I can help 
you to refresh your memory and I remind you that you’re 
under oath and you’re an officer of the law and if anybody 
[fol. 457] respects the law it ought to be officers of the law.

MR. DeBLANC: I don’t think that that’s necessary, 
Your Honor.

(Argument off the record.)
THE COURT: I think the objection is good, Mr. Pic- 

cione. I ’ll sustain it.
Q (By Mr. Piccione) Is it not a fact that Capt. 

Shirley Picard at no time said to this man that if  he was 
poor and could not afford a lawyer that the State would 
appoint one for him?

A You’re asking me if Capt. Picard did say that?
Q I ’m asking you is it not a fact that he did not say 

that?
A No, sir. He advised him of his rights. He had the 

right to an attorney, if he could not afford one that one 
would be appointed to him.

Q You say those were his words?



90

A As close as I can put it.
Q And Claude didn’t answer, did he?
A No, sir.
Q He didn’t answer.
A No, sir.
Q You say that he told him he could remain silent.
A That’s correct.
Q That anything against him could be used. That’s 

what you said, isn’t it.
A Correct.
Q You mean that he didn’t tell him then what he 

said could be used against him.
A Pardon. Repeat that question?
Q I understood you to say that anything against him 

could be used. Now, is that correct?
[fol. 458] A Anything said that he said could be used 
against him in court.

0  Now, do you want to change your testimony?
A No, sir.
Q Are you correcting yourself now?
A No, sir, I ’m not.
Q In other words, you’re now saying that what he 

said could be used against Mm. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And when he said that to Claude, Claude didn’t

answer.
A He didn’t answer.
Q He didn’t respond, did he?
A He didn’t answer.
Q And you can’t read his mind, can you, sir?
A No, sir, I can’t.
Q And you don’t believe that Capt. Picard has that 

kind of power either, do you?
A No, sir.
Q Now while you were in there, you said you were in 

there, did you have your pistol on?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Capt. Picard had his pistol on?
A I don’t recall.
Q Was anybody else in there?
A Not that I remember or know of.



91

Q Officer Navarre was not there?
A I f  he was I didn’t see him.
Q You didn’t see him.
A No, sir.
Q Ju st you and Capt. Picard. Is that right?

[fol. 459] A Correct.
Q Is it not a fact that you left the room most of the 

time and Capt. Picard was in that room alone with Claude 
Alexander? Isn’t that correct?

A No, sir, it’s not.
Q You say you were in there for the entire statement. 
A Correct.
Q That’s a fact. Ju st you two and Claude Alexander. 

Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q The door was closed?
A The door was closed, yes, sir.
Q And every now and then some other officer came 

through. Is that right?
A They opened the door, yes, sir.
Q And in fact one officer brought in some coffee. 

Isn’t that right?
A Not that I recall, no, sir.
Q You don’t recall that?
A No, sir.
Q And they kept coming in and out?
A I ’ve seen the door open several times, yes, sir.
Q And they had their pistols on?
A I couldn’t answer that.
Q Now, I ask you still to see if your memory will 

not be refreshed. Do you recall Claude Alexander say­
ing that he wanted to call his mother?

A No, sir, I didn’t hear that.
Q You didn’t hear that?
A No, sir.

[fol. 460] Q You think you heard everything that took 
place?

A I think so.
Q There weren’t one, two, three people talking at one 

time?
A No, sir, not that I heard.



92

Q Do you recall that when the Sergeant wanted to
question him he said, “Why don’t you take me to ja il so 
I can get some sleep” ?

A No, sir.
Q Now, think about that.
A I didn’t hear that at all, sir.
Q Are you trying to remember?
A Yes, sir.
Q You’re trying to remember?
A Correct.
Q And you didn’t hear him say in exhausted fashion 

that he wanted some sleep?
A No, sir, I didn’t.
Q Did you hear Sgt, Picard after such a statement

say, “Not until you tell me what happened” ?
A No, sir, I didn’t hear that at all.
Q You didn’t hear that?
A No, sir.
Q But all during this time that Capt. Picard explained

to him his rights, he didn’t say a word. Isn’t that cor­
rect?

A Correct.
Q And when the Sergeant began to question him, he 

had to ask him several questions before he gave one 
answer, didn’t he?

A No, sir, not that I ’ve heard.
[fol. 461] Q I don’t know if I asked you this question. 
I f  I did please overlook it, But when you say that Capt. 
Picard told him that if  he couldn’t hire a lawyer that 
one would be furnished to him, Claude Alexander didn’t 
answer.

A Correct.
Q You didn’t hear a word from him.
A No, sir.
Q Now, I want to ask you this question. You stated 

a while ago that after this was written out by Capt. 
Picard that he, Capt. Picard, read it back to Claude 
Alexander.

A Correct.
Q Now, is that correct?
A That’s right.



93

Q And if  Capt. Picard said that he didn’t  read it but 
rather that he gave it to Claude and Claude read it, who 
would be right or wrong, you or Capt. Picard?

A Well, you’re asking about my statement, sir. To 
me Capt. Picard read the statement.

Q In other words, that’s your recollection.
A That’s right.
Q Your recollection then is that Claude here didn’t 

read the statement. Is that right?
A That’s right.
Q Now the statement that you say Capt. Picard 

read, was it typed or was it written out in longhand?
A It was typed.
Q Typed by Capt. Picard?
A Yes, sir.
Q Written down by Capt. Picard, words?
A Capt. Picard was taking notes.

[fob 462] Q He typed it from his notes. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q Now, you didn’t see a recording machine taking 

down the questions and answers?
A No, sir, I didn’t.
Q You all have a recording machine in the police 

department?
A We have one, yes.
Q You’ve got about five or six, haven’t you?
A Yes, sir.
Q The Captain Improvement Commission has furn­

ished you all with five or six of them, haven’t they?
A I know of two that I know of.
Q And you all didn’t use the recording machine for an 

important thing like that?
A Not that I know of.
Q Yes, sir. Even though it was available you all 

didn’t use it. Is that right, sir?
A Not that I know of.
Q Well, was there a Court Reporter in there? Of all 

the Court Reporters we have available, did you all have 
somebody take down word for word the questions and 
answers and who said them?

A No, sir.



94

Q You didn’t do that, did you?
A No, sir.
Q Capt. Picard made notes and he wrote it out and 

typed it out. Is that right, sir?
A Correct.
Q Now, where are his notes? Do you know where his 

[fol. 463] notes are?
A He must have it with him, I guess.
Q You think he’s got his longhand notes or has he 

destroyed those?
A I wouldn’t know that.
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, I ’d like to move for a 

subpoena duces tecum for the longhand notes of Capt. 
Picard.

THE COURT: Does the State have any objection?
MR. DeBLANC: No, we have no objection. It  doesn’t 

seem to be a proper procedure.
THE COURT: I t ’s my impression that the purpose 

of this evidence at this time outside of the presence of 
the jury is to determine whether or not the accused was 
given and warned of his constitutional rights and I don’t 
think the content of the statement—

MR. PICCIONE : Well, Your Honor, until I see the 
notes I don’t know whether it may not contain something 
about the warning. I ’m interested in the warning.

(Argument off the record.)

THE COURT: You want to issue a subpoena or do it 
informally?

MR. PICCION E: We’ll do it informally. I could pro­
ceed with this witness.

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Mr. Broussard, you took the 
girl to the hospital, didn’t you?

A Correct.
Q Well, you were at the Lady Of Lourdes Hospital 

while Claude Alexander was at the police station, isn’t 
that right?

A I went to the hospital.
Q And when you came back from the hospital, hadn’t 

[fol. 464] Capt. Picard already finished questioning 
Claude Alexander?



95

A No, sir, he wasn’t.
Q He hadn’t finished?
A He hadn’t started.
Q You got there at the beginning.
.A. Correct
THE COURT: Here’s Capt. Picard.
MR. PICCIONE: Captain, have you got your long- 

hand notes, if you took some longhand notes, when you 
questioned Claude Alexander?

CAPT. PICARD: No, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: Where is that?
CAPT. PICARD: I threw them, away, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: You threw them away. I ’d like for 

the record to show that.
THE COURT: All right, you may retire.

(At this time Capt. Picard retires from the court­
room. )

EXAMINATION (CONT’D.)

BY  MR. PICCIONE:

Q And when as you say Capt. Picard read the type­
written statement, did the accused respond in any way? 
Did Alexander say anything?

A He answered “that’s what happened”.
Q He answered “that’s what happened”.
A Correct.
Q And what was his position at that time? Was his 

head up high or was he leaning down—
THE COURT: Mr. Piccione, I thought we had agreed 

that we were going to restrict this to the question of 
whether he was warned or not warned and whether he 
waived or did not waive—
[fol. 465] MR. PICCION E: You don’t think his phys­
ical and mental condition has to do with whether or not 
he—

THE COURT: Well, if that’s the purpose I ’ll allow 
you to proceed.

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Well, what was his position?
A He was sitting down.



96

Q He was sitting down in a chair?
A Correct.
Q Were his eyes opened?
A That’s right.
Q And did he sign the statement?
A No, sir, he didn’t.
Q He refused to sign the statement.
A Correct.
Q And that impressed you as being an agreement 

that the statement was true and correct. Is that right, 
sir?

A Pardon?
Q By him refusing to sign the statement, that im­

pressed you as his agreement that the statement was 
true and correct.

A No, sir, not to my opinion.
Q Well, in your opinion his not signing it indicated 

that he didn’t agree with it. Isn’t that right?
A He didn’t say he didn’t agree with it.
Q But he didn’t sign it.
A He didn’t sign it.
Q In fact, he refused to sign it.
A Correct.
Q Did you all then after the statement take him to 

jail so he could sleep?
A No, sir. After he refused to sign it he left the 

[fol. 466] room with an officer. He went to the ID room. 
Q Took a picture of him then?
A I think so. I ’m not sure.
Q Took his clothes?
A I couldn’t answer that. I wasn’t present.
Q How long was he in that room being questioned? 
A I wouldn’t know, sir.
Q You don’t have any idea?
A You want an approximate answer?
Q Well, give me the best you can.
A I ’d say approximately thirty, possibly forty-five 

minutes.
Q And how long had he been in that room before 

they started questioning him?



97

A I couldn’t answer. He was already in the room 
when I entered the room myself.

Q He had been under arrest more than an hour, 
hadn’t he?

A I wouldn’t know, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: That’s all, Your Honor.
MR. DeBLANC: No further questions. Well, just 

one more question.

RED IRECT EXAMINATION

BY  MR. DeBLANC:

Q About what time was that about when you got 
through with the examination?

A I’d say approximately 3:00, 3 :15 ; somewheres 
around that time.

RECROSS EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. PICCIONE:

Q Mr. Broussard, did you ask Claude Alexander any 
questions?
[fol. 467] A No, sir, I didn’t ask him any questions.

Q How about at the scene when you first arrested 
him, did you ask him any questions?

A No, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: That’s all, Your Honor.

(Witness excused)

MR. DeBLANC: The State will call Officer Anthony 
Navarre.

Thereupon,
ANTHONY NAVARRE

was recalled as a witness, and having previously been 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:



98

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY  MR. DeBLANC:
Q Will you state your name, please.
A Anthony Navarre.
Q And you are a City Police Officer?
A I am.
Q How long have you been so employed?
A Since November of 1964.
Q Do you know Claude Alexander ?
A I do.
Q Do you see him in court?
A I do.
Q Would you point him out to the Court?
A Sitting to the right of Mr. Piccione.
Q Did you have occasion to see him during the early 

morning hours of September the 4th, 1967 at the police 
station, Lafayette Police Station?

A I did.
[fol. 468] Q Where was that?

A In Captain— in the detective office.
Q Whose office is that?
A Capt. Shirley Picard.
Q Would you describe that office for the Court? How 

big was it and what’s in there?
A Well, there’s a desk, a filing cabinet, also a cabinet 

with a glass type in front, three chairs and the desk 
behind the chair and two doors.

Q Two doors?
A Right.
Q Now, who was there besides Alexander on that 

morning?
A Capt. Picard and Sidney Broussard.
Q About what time of the morning was that?
A I could not guess. I did not look at my watch. I 

could not say what time it was.
Q Did you hear a conversation between the accused 

Claude Alexander and Capt. Picard?
A I did.



99

Q Well, could you state whether or not during that 
conversation Claude Alexander made a statement of some 
kind to Capt. Picard?

A He did.
Q Now that statement that you say he made, did you 

or anyone else in your presence promise Claude Alex­
ander anything to induce him to make the statement you 
say he made?

MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, because of the very 
serious burden that is upon the State under the think­
ing of Miranda -vs- Arizona, I want to make my objec­
tion very clear as to why I object to this question as a 
leading question. Because the burden is upon the State 
[fol. 469] to prove it and there is no other witness un­
biased, there’s no other witness but the accused as 
against the three policemen present, they ought not to 
be asked leading questions. The answers are not to be 
put in their mouth by suggestion and I urgently and 
sincerely urge this as an objection that goes to the 
merits of this question, that the facts of this ought to 
come from the mouth of the witness as to what was done, 
what was said, who said it, was there an answer, who 
answered, what did he answer; what was said, not did 
somebody force him, did somebody threaten him, did 
someone intimidate him. That requires an interpreta­
tion, it requires an opinion. I think it’s objectionable.

THE COURT: Well, I think that we are faced with 
a situation that goes beyond the norm insofar as evi­
dence is concerned in view of the fact that this is a 
presentation of testimony to determine whether or not 
certain facets and requirements of the law have been 
complied with.

Although the Court sees your point very clearly, and 
I can’t say that the Court thinks you’re completely 
wrong, however, I think that the procedure that’s being 
employed by the State is all right. So I ’ll overrule your 
objection.

MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, I ’d like to reserve my 
bill of exception on that, and I make a part of it the 
question containing a conclusion, asking for an option, 
as being incompetent and leading and objectionable in 
view of the issue of the State.



100

THE COURT: Of course I think a lot of these ad­
jectives are conclusions. The Court will agree with that. 
But the Court knows of no other way it can draw a con­
clusion. The only thing that this Court is interested in 
at this time is whether this statement, regardless of 
[fol. 470] what its format is, whether it’s free and vol­
untary and whether or not the accused was warned of 
his constitutional rights as illustrated by Escobeda, 
Miranda and the other cases.

MR. DeBLANC: Could you read the question back 
to him, please.

(Thereupon the pending question was read by the 
Reporter as above recorded.)

THE W ITN ESS: I did not, nor did anyone else in 
my presence.

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Did you or anyone else in 
your presence threaten him, menace him or intimidate 
him in any way to cause him to give the statement he 
gave?

MR. PICCION E: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling.
MR. PICCION E: And same exception making a part 

of it the question, the objection and the ruling of the 
Court.

THE COURT: Let the bill be noted.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Did you or anyone else in 

your presence place him in fear or duress to cause him 
to give the statement you said he gave?

A I did not, nor did anyone else in my presence.
Q Did you or anyone else in your presence subject 

him to any treatment designed by effect on body or mind 
to compel a confession of crime?

A I did not, nor did anyone else in my presence.
Q Now, did you hear what Capt. Picard told him—
A I did.
Q —before he gave the statement to him?
A I did.

[fol. 471] 0  What did he tell him?
A He advised him of his rights. He told him that he 

did not have to say anything and that if  he chose to say



101

anything, whatever he said could and would be held 
against him. He advised him that he was entitled to 
a phone call, that he was entitled to Counsel, that if he 
did not have counsel, counsel could be appointed for him, 
and he was also told that if  he chose to talk at any time 
during his conversation he could stop.

Q And did he choose to make a phone call?
A He did not.
Q Well, what did he say? Did he say anything to him 

that he didn’t want to make a phone call?
A The telephone was made available to him.
Q How?
A It was picked up by Capt. Picard and placed in 

front of him. He pushed it away and said he did not 
wish to make a phone call. He said, “I do not want to 
make a phone call”.

MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCION E:
Q Mr. Navarre, during the recess of the Court, wTere 

you among the detectives and officers that were in the 
elevator together?

A I was.
Q Capt. Picard was there?
A He was.
Q And Sidney Broussard was there?
A He was.
Q And when I came into the elevator, you all stopped 

talking. You remember that?
[fol. 472] A I was not in the elevator when you came 
in.

Q You were not there when I came in?
A I was on this floor. Do you mean when you were 

coming into the courtroom at one o’clock?
Q And there were only detectives and policemen in 

the elevator. Is that right?
A I was not there.
Q You were not there?
A No, sir.



102

Q You didn’t hear the conversation?
A I did not.
Q; You all weren’t talking about Miranda -vs- 

Arizona ?
A I was not present.
Q And what it requires to warn a man?
A I was not present.
Q When did you learn the warning that you just 

described in your words?
A I learned the warning that I just described in my 

words at Bunkie at the law enforcement institute.
Q And how long ago was that?
A Approximately a year.
Q About a year ago?
A In fact it’s over a year because I was at Bunkie 

during Mardi Gras of last year.
Q And at that time the Miranda case was mentioned? 
A It was.
Q You heard an explanation of it?
A We had a complete course on it.
Q, You feel that you’re pretty familiar with it.
A No, I ’m not.

[fol. 473] Q You’re not too familiar with it?
A No, sir.
Q Let me ask you a few specific questions. Were you 

in the room at all times that the questions were being 
asked?

A I was not.
Q You were not?
A I was not.
Q Well, you said you were there when the warning 

was given.
A I was.
Q What happened, did you leave then?
A I stayed for a while.
Q How long?
A I stayed to hear Capt. Picard ask him “make 

another statement”.
Q “Make another statement” to him?
A Right.
Q How do you mean, “make another statement” ?



103

A Well, he said something else to him afterwards.
Q Who said something to who?
A Capt. Picard said something else to Claude Alex­

ander.
Q What was his statement?
A He asked him what happened in Girard Park.
Q He asked him what happened in Girard Park?
A Yes.
Q He asked him some other questions too, didn’t he? 

He asked him a lot of questions, didn’t he?
A I was not there during the interrogation itself.
Q Oh, you were not there during the interrogation 

itself?
A I was not.

[fol. 474] Q Then you don’t know whether Capt. 
Picard asked any questions before you heard him give 
the warning. Is that right?

A I do.
Q You do what?
A I was there before he gave him the warning. He 

did not ask him any questions.
Q You asked him a few questions?
A I did not.
Q Did Sidney Broussard ask him a few questions?
A He did not, not in my presence.
Q Well, did Capt. Picard ask him a few questions 

before he gave him the warning?
A He did not.
Q Now when he was offered the telephone, do you 

remember him saying that— at any time. Do you remem­
ber Mr. Alexander saying he wanted to call his mother?

A I do not.
Q Do you remember at one time that he said, “Why 

don’t you take me to jail so I can get some sleep” ?
A I do.
Q You remember that?
A I do.
Q Now, can you enlighten us on whether he said 

that?
A He said that as Auxiliaryman Broussard and I 

were taking him—were preparing to take him to book 
him.



104

Q Now, this was before the statement was given to 
Capt. Picard. Is that right, sir?

A It was after.
Q That was after?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 475] Q Now, you feel sure of your memory on 
that?

A I do.
Q And had you heard him say that same thing before 

then?
A I had not.
Q Or words to the effect that he was pooped and 

that he wanted to get some sleep.
A I don’t recall that.
Q; Did he say that once or more than once?
A Say what?
Q Did he say that he wanted to get some sleep once 

or more than once?
A I heard it only once.
Q And you were not there then when Capt. Picard 

said to him, “No, not until you tell me what happened”. 
A I don’t recall.
Q You didn’t hear him say that?
A I wasn’t there. I don’t recall that.
Q Were you there when the statement was typed up? 
A I was.
Q Who typed it?
A Capt. Picard type it.
Q Did you see whether he wrote it down in longhand? 
A I was there when he began writing it down.
Q Did you notice what he did with the paper that 

he wrote it down on?
A No.
Q Nobody used a recording machine?
A There was no recording machine.
Q No taping was made of it.
A There was no tape.

[fol. 476] Q There was no recording, right?
A There was no recording.
Q Nobody thought to go get the recording machine. 
A No.



105

Q Nobody thought to call a Court Reporter.
A No.
Q Now, let’s be a little more specific. When you said 

that Capt. Picard said to him in effect, “you can remain 
silent”, “anything you say may and can and will be used 
against you”. You heard him say that?

A I did.
Q And did Claude answer and say “okay, I under- 

stand”
A He did. He said, “You don’t need to tell me my 

rights. I know them”.
Q He responded, he spoke up, and he said, “You 

don’t need to tell me my rights. I know them”. Is that 
right?

A Correct.
Q All right. Now, then, when Capt. Picard told him 

“you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can’t afford 
one one will be furnished to you”, you heard him say 
that?

A I did.
Q And Claude Alexander answered that he under­

stood that and that he didn’t want a lawyer.
A He did.
Q Now, you give me his words. What did Claude 

Alexander say?
A He said, “I understand my rights. You don’t need 

to tell them to me”.
Q “I understand my rights. You don’t need to tell 

them to me”. Is that right?
[fol. 477] A Correct.

0  And did he say what you indicated a while ago, 
“I don’t need a lawyer”, “I don’t want a lawyer” ? Did 
he say that?

A I didn’t hear him say that.
Q Did you hear him say anything to the effect that 

he didn’t choose to have a lawyer?
A He didn’t say anything about a lawyer to the best 

of my knowledge.
Q Except what you said a while ago.
A Correct.
Q And he said that in answer to the question of Capt. 

Picard that he had a right to an attorney and if  he



108

couldn’t afford one one would be furnished to him. Is
that right?

A He said that at the end of the entire statement of 
his rights.

Q Now, you’re saying then that Claude Alexander 
when warned of his rights, he didn’t just sit there mute 
and say nothing. He just didn’t sit there dumb and say 
nothing. He did speak up.

A Correct.
Q He answered.
A Correct.
Q And he said he knew his rights and he didn’t  have 

to be advised of his rights.
A Correct.
Q That’s what he said.
A Correct.
Q So if  anybody testified that he said nothing when 

these warnings were given to him or if one man said that 
he said nothing but nodded his head, that isn’t  correct, 
is it?
[fol. 478] A I cannot answer for anyone else.

Q I beg your pardon?
A I cannot answer for anyone else.
Q You can only answer for yourself.
A Correct.
Q And that’s your testimony under oath.
A Correct.
Q When you were in the room there with Capt. 

Picard, was Sidney Broussard there too?
A He was.
Q You had your pistol on?
A I did.
Q And he had his pistol on?
A He did.
Q Did Capt. Picard have his?
A He did.
Q Did any of you all have a billy club handy?
A No one had a club.
Q Did Claude have his handcuffs on?
A (No response).
Q You had brought him in, I believe.



107

A I brought him into the office, into that particular 
office.

Q Were the handcuffs still on him?
A They were taken off.
Q They were taken off when?
A I can’t recall when they were taken off, but they 

were taken off before the statement, before he was ad­
vised of his rights. I recall that much.

Q Is that right?
[fol. 479] A Correct.

Q Did you all have some coffee while you all were 
in that conference room?

A We did.
Q Did Claude have any?
A He was offered some.
Q He didn’t take any, is that right?
A I can’t recall. I was called away several times.
MR. PICCION E: That’s all, Your Honor.

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. DeBLANC:
Q When he said, “I understand my rights. You don’t 

have to tell me”, where were you sitting?
A I was sitting to his right, next to him. He was 

right next to me.
Q And where was Capt. Picard sitting?
A He was sitting in front of us behind his desk 

facing us.
Q And how many times did he say that, “I under­

stand my rights. You don’t have to tell me” ?
A I recall him saying it once.
Q And is there anything else that happened there 

before he gave his statement that you haven’t told us 
about?

A I believe Capt. Picard told him once that he didn’t 
have to give a statement. I believe he said that he didn’t 
need a statement from him. He didn’t have to give one. 
I also recall that I was called away from the room several 
times, but I also recall once that he stated that he



108

wouldn’t sign anything or wouldn’t say anything fur­
ther unless he was given his shoes. I recall that much. 
[fol.480] MR. DeBLANC: Thank you. That’s all.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

B Y  MR. PICCION E:

Q Was he ever given his shoes?
A I don’t recall. He wasn’t given his shoes in my 

presence.
Q He was barefoot at the time.
A Correct.
Q Now, you said that you were sitting in a chair right 

to the right of Claude. You mean your chair was right 
beside his like that?

A Correct.
Q And he was there and you were on his right?
A Correct.
Q And Sidney Broussard was right on his left. Is 

that right?
A Correct.
Q So you had an officer like that gentlemen there and 

he was here and they had another officer like me here and 
you had a small table here and you had another officer 
over there. Is that right?

A Not a table; a desk.
Q You had him surrounded by three officers. Is that 

right?
A Correct.
Q Was anybody else in the room?
A No' one else was present.
Q His mother wasn’t  there?
A She was not.
Q His father wasn’t there?

[fob 481] A No, sir.
Q His lawyer wasn’t there?
A Correct.
Q He didn’t have a lawyer.
A I did not know.
Q Officer Navarre, did you put your arm on Claude 

one time there?



109

A I did not,
Q You didn’t pat Mm on the shoulder?
A I did not.
Q You didn’t pat him on the shoulder and say, “Go 

ahead and tell him about it” ?
A I did not.
Q You didn’t do that?
A I did not.
Q, You didn’t tell him that was the best thing for him 

to do?
A I did not.
Q You don’t recall doing that?
A I did not do that.
Q In fact, you didn’t talk to him at all, did you?
A I did not have any conversation at all while he 

was in the office.
Q You just listened.
.A. Correct
MR. PICCION E: That’s all, Your Honor.
MR. DeBLANC: No more questions, Your Honor.

(Witness excused)

THE COURT: Off the record.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

[fol. 482] MR. DeBLANC: This is our evidence inso­
far  as the voluntary nature of the confession or inculpa­
tory statement and as well as the showing that his con- 
stitutionel rights have been complied with.

THE COURT: All right. Does the defense have any 
evidence?

MR. PICCIONE: Well, we call the only witness we 
have, Your Honor, and that’s the accused.

THE COURT: All right.

EXAMINATION ON VALID ITY OF STATEM ENT 

Thereupon,
CLAUDE ALEXANDER

the Defendant herein, was recalled as a witness, and hav­
ing previously been sworn, was examined and testified 
further as follows:



110

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY  MR. PICCION E:

Q Your name is Claude Alexander?
A Yes, sir.
Q You’re the Defendant in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q You remember being arrested on September 4, 1967? 
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you taken to ja il— at least were you taken to 

the police station?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that the one over here on Pierce Street?
A I think so.
Q Actually who took you there?
A I don’t know the officer’s name.

[fol. 483] Q. You don’t know the officer’s name?
A I don’t.
Q Now before you went up there, had you been injured 

in any way?
A Yes, sir.
Q How?
A Well, at least, the officer that picked me up in the 

park, he hit me.
Q He hit you with what?
A It either have to be his gun or his club or something. 
Q Did you at any time see his gun?
A At least I saw him -when he pulled it out.
Q Did you ever see his gun on the pavement?
A No, sir.
Q You don’t remember that?
A No, sir.
Q Besides the officer hitting you with the gun, did you 

have any other fight with him, any other exchange with 
him?

A Yes, sir.
Q What was that?
A After I hit him I started running. I mean, when I 

stopped, he dove on me.
Q Did he hit you?



I l l

A We started tussling.
Q; Now, were you all standing up or on the ground?
A We was on the ground.
Q What parts of your body hit the ground?
A My back, chest and my face hit it a couple of times. 
Q Your face hit the ground a couple of times?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 484] Q That made you feel real good?
THE COURT: Off the record.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

Q, (By Mr. Piccione) Did anything else happen to 
you physically?

A Ju st when we got up, after we got through tussling, 
he handcuffed me from the back.

Q He handcuffed you behind your back?
A Yes, sir.
Q The two hands behind your back?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, how long did those handcuffs stay on your two 

hands?
A Until I got in the office.
Q Were they taken off when you got to the office?
A Not just then.
Q Were they taken off before or after the interroga­

tion?
A They was taken off during.
Q During the interrogation?
A Yes, sir.
Q During the time they questioned you?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the first part of it did you have your handcuffs 

on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, did they offer you to use a telephone?
A No, sir. I asked them.
Q You asked them?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you asked them, did you have the handcuffs 

on or off?
[fol. 485] A I still had them on.



112

Q Behind your back?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you asked to use the phone, did you spe­

cifically say who you wanted to call?
A Yes, sir. I told them I wanted to call my mother.
Q How many times did you tell them that?
A Well, I asked them about twice.
Q Who did you say that to?
A Capt. Shirley Picard.
Q Who else was there?
A Well, at the time I don’t believe they had anybody 

else in the room.
Q And did he let you use the telephone?
A No, sir.
Q He says he put the phone in front of you and you 

didn’t care to use it. Is that true?
A No, sir.
Q Claude, when you got into that room did Capt. 

Picard talk to you?
A Yes, he did.
Q Now at the time he started talking to you, how 

did you feel physically and mentally?
A Well, after we got through— after the man had hit 

me on my eye with the gun, at least with something, and 
after we got through tussling in the park, I mean, I 
wasn’t feeling good.

Q How did you feel?
A Well, I was sort of dizzy.
Q Dizzy?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 486] Q Did you at any time say anything to the 
officers about that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q What did you tell them?
A I told them why don’t  they take me to jail or let me 

go home, you know, get some sleep.
Q Did you feel sleepy?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did they take you to jail or let you get any sleep?
A No, sir. They took me to the police station.



113

Q And what kind of— did you sit down or lie down 
or what?

A I was sitting down.
Q You were sitting down?
A Yes, sir.
Q And were there other officers in the room when the 

conversation started?
A No, sir, not at the time.
Q Who was there?
A Ju st me and Shirley Picard.
Q Was Sidney Broussard there at any time?
A I think he came in afterwards.
Q Afterwards?
A Yes, sir.
Q After what?
A After Shirley Picard got through questioning me.
Q After he got through questioning you?
A Yes, sir.
Q When he began to question you, was Sidney Brous­

sard there?
[fol. 487] A No, sir.

Q Was Officer Navarre there when he started to ques­
tion you?

A lie  was out— I guess he was in another office be­
cause he wasn’t  there— I saw him when they brought me 
in.

Q Now, Claude, tell the Court in your own words what 
did Capt. Picard tell you.

A Well, after I asked him to use the phone he told me 
not until, you know— at least not until I tell him what 
happened in the park.

Q Was that before he said anything further—was that 
before he questioned you or after?

A Before he questioned me.
Q Before he questioned you?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. Repeat that now. How did he say that?
A I asked him to use the telephone and he said not 

until I tell— “not until you tell me what happened in 
the park”.



114

Q And when you made the remark that you wanted to 
get some sleep, did they respond to that? Did they say 
anything to that?

A Yes, sir. At least I did get sort of angry and I 
stood up. I said, “Why don’t you take me to jail, I ’m 
sleepy”. Then the other officer opened the door and he 
waved them not to come in.

Q And who was that other officer?
A I don’t know the other officer, but Shirley Picard 

waved them not to come in.
Q Capt. Picard waved the other officers not to come in?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 488] Q Do you know the name of any other of­
ficer who may have heard you say that?

A No, sir.
Q The ones that were trying to come in there.
A Maybe they would have heard me, but I don’t  know.
Q They might have heard you.
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know his name?
A No, sir.
Q All right. Now, tell the Court— Capt. Picard said 

he warned you. Tell the Court what he said to you.
A Well, I don’t recall, you know, him telling me too 

much. He just asked me, started asking me what hap­
pened in the park.

Q He started asking you what happened in the park?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, he says that he warned you about certain 

things. Now, what do you know about that? What did 
he warn you about, if anything?

A Well, if  he did tell me anything I didn’t hear it.
Q Did you answer him in any way?
A No, sir.
Q Did you tell him, “I understand that I can keep 

quiet. I don’t have to say anything. And if I say some­
thing it may be used and can be used against me”. Did 
you tell him that?

A No, sir.
Q Did you say to him, “I don’t want a lawyer. I 

don’t have a lawyer. I can’t afford one and you can’t



115

hire one for me. I don’t want one”. Did you tell 
him that?

A No, sir.
[fol. 489] Q Did you tell him that you understood that 
and therefore you would do without one. Did you ever 
do that?

A No, sir.
Q When he gave you the so-called warnings, did you 

answer him in any way?
A No, sir.
Q, Did you understand what he was talking about?
A Like I told you, I was kind of dizzy and I was 

just about sleeping, you know.
Q Is that as best you can remember?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that how you understood it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you understand what he was talking about?
A Well, not exactly.
Q Did that ever happen to you before?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever have a similar experience?
A No, sir.
Q Now, did Capt. Picard write some things down in 

longhand?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did he ask you some questions?
A Yes, sir, he did.
Q Were his questions of the sort of “what happened”, 

“what occurred”, “what took place”, or were they the 
sort of— or were they leading questions of the nature of 
“weren’t you in the park”, “didn’t you rape the girl”, 
and so forth?

MR. DeBLANC: I understand the purpose of this ex­
amination now is to determine the voluntary nature of it 
[fol. 490] and whether he’s been advised of his constitu­
tional rights. Now, we have not asked—

MR. PICCION E: I will agree with that.
THE COURT: All right.
Q (By Mr. Piccione) Now, did he type that state­

ment up?



116

A Yes, sir.
Q Did he do it that same morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q He had the typewriter right there in the office?
A Yes, sir.
Q You saw him type it up?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then did he hand it to you, the statement, or did he 

read it to you?
A He handed it to me.
Q Did he read it to you?
A No, sir.
Q Now, did you look at the statement?
A I glanced at it.
Q Did you take time to read every word of it?
A Well, I just read a few words.
Q You read some?
A Yes, sir. And they had something that I didn’t say 

in the statement that he had typed.
Q They had something on there you didn’t say?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you saw that what did you do?
A He asked me to sign it and I stood up and I threw it 

down, threw the paper down, and I said, “I ain’t signing 
something I didn’t say”.
[fol. 491] Q Q Did you sign it?

A No, sir.
Q Why didn’t you sign it?
A Because I didn’t tell him that.
Q Did they then take you to jail where you could 

sleep?
A No, sir.
Q You all then left the room. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: That’s all, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
BY  MR. DeBLANC:

Q As I understand it, he typed this statement up— 
from where did he get that information that he typed 
this statement up from?



117

A Well, most of that he was saying it himself.
Q He was what?
A Everything that he was typing down, I mean, he 

was just about saying it himself.
Q Well, was it something that he had written down 

with a pencil?
A Well, he’d ask me some questions sort of, you know, 

like, “did you rape that girl in the park”. I told him no. 
I just came out and I told him no. Then he started writ­
ing. He kept on asking me questions and then I didn’t 
say nothing else after that.

Q Well, he would ask you questions and then he would 
write something down.

A Yes, sir.
Q And then he kept on asking you questions and 

then he’d write something down, right?
[fol. 492] A Yes, sir.

Q And then after that he typed it up on a typewriter?
A Yes, sir, after he got through.
Q Were you there when he typed it on a typewriter?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then he took it and handed it to you.
A After he got through.
Q And then you read it and there’s something in there 

you saw that you didn’t say. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, you said you read a few words. About how 

many sentences did you read?
About four or five.
Q Four or five sentences?
A Yes, sir. I read just about half of it.
Q Oh, you read just about half of it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then you stopped?
A Yes, sir.
Q Right in the middle of it?
A He asked me to sign it.
Q Yes, but then you were looking at it, right?
A Yes.
Q And there was something in there that you didn’t 

want to— there was something in there that you read that 
you felt that you didn’t  say.



118

A Well, they had a lot of things in there that I didn’t 
say.

Q I thought you said that there was something in 
there you didn’t say.
[fob 493] A Well, if  I did say it it  was a mistake; but 
I say “if”.

Q You might have said it but you didn’t mean to say 
it.

A That’s right.
Q So some of the things that you read in there you 

said you— now don’t tell me what you said—
THE COURT: This is something to be determined if 

and when this Court allows reference to be made to this 
statement. You’re going into the contents of it now. 
Does this have something to do with the free and volun­
tary nature of it?

MR. DeBLANC: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know that I see it, but go 

ahead.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) You read the statement or half 

of it, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now what I meant to say was, when you read those 

words in the statement you understood what they meant, 
most of them.

A Most of them.
Q You just didn’t agree with— as I understood it, you 

read half of the statement and then you stopped, right?
A Yes.
Q And then there’s some of the things that you 

brought to his attention that while you may have said 
you didn’t  mean to say them.

A No, sir, I didn’t say that.
Q Huh?
A I didn’t say that. I said he was telling me some 

questions— I mean, he was asking me some questions.
Q Yes, but don’t say what he said.
Q I ain’t going to say what he said, but he was asking 

[fol. 494] me some questions and, you know, every once 
in a while he started writing down. And then after he 
got through typing it out he handed it to me and I read



119

half of it, I could say about half of it, and then when 
I got through I looked at him and I just stopped and I 
threw the pencil and the paper back to him and said 
“I didn’t say it”.

Q Some things in there—
A Most of it.
Q Well, now, why didn’t you read the rest of the 

statement?
A Well, I got kind— I got angry because I didn’t say 

what he had down.
Q Oh, I see. And then— so then you said you wouldn’t 

sign the statement. But you don’t know whether the other 
part of the statement was something you said or not. 
Is that right?

A Well, I read the other part.
Q Oh, you read the other part.
A Not that night.
Q When did you read that?
A Well, I read the statement.
Q Later on?
A Yes.
Q On another occasion or a little bit later that night?
A On another occasion.
Q Who gave it to you on another occasion?
A Well, my lawyer had one.
Q Did you understand what you read in the rest of the 

statement?
A Did I understand?
Q Yes, understand it.

[fol. 495] A Well, I didn’t say that either.
Q Well, I ’m asking you, did you understand what was 

down there?
A Did I understand what they had on the paper?
Q Yes.
A Yes, I understood what they had on the paper.
Q Now, before he wrote that statement down, didn’t 

you all have a little conversation about something or 
other?

A Oh, he went and get some coffee. He saw somebody 
with some coffee.

Q Did you drink some coffee with them?



120

A No, sir.
Q They asked you to drink some, didn’t they?
A That’s right.
Q And you said you didn’t want any coffee, huh?
A I said I didn’t want any coffee. Like he was trying 

to bribe me or something, asking me if I wanted a cup of 
coffee.

Q Didn’t you think maybe they were being nice to you 
to ask you if  you wanted to join them in coffee?

A They couldn’t be nice, I mean, if they asked me if 
I did this or if I did that.

Q But you said no, you didn’t want any coffee.
A That’s right.
Q Now, there was a phone there in that room, right?
A That’s right.
Q And didn’t he say to you, “Would you like to use 

the phone” ?
A No, sir, I  asked him.
Q Oh, you asked him?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 496] Q Did he say okay?
A No, sir, not until—he told me, he said, “Not until 

you tell me what happened in the park”.
Q Oh, not until then.
A That’s right.
Q Well, who did you want to call?
A Well, my mother.
Q Did you finally call your mother?
A Well, they didn’t even let me use the phone.
Q You never did call your mother?
A I never did.
Q I want to ask you if you can understand this when 

I  ask you this question, and I ’m just asking if you under­
stand these words, you see what I mean. “You have the 
right to remain silent”. You understand what that means?

A Yes, I do.
Q Well, what does that mean?
A Well, you have a right not to talk.
Q All right. “Now, anything that you say can and 

will be used against you in a court of law”. What does 
that mean?



121

A I didn’t  hear that before.
Q But, I mean, what would that mean to you if  I 

told it to you, “Anything that you say can and will be 
used against you in a court of law”.

A I don’t know.
Q You don’t know what that means?
A I don’t think so, unless I think about it.
Q You know what a court of law is?
THE COURT: Can you think about it maybe?
THE W ITN ESS: Yes, I could.

[fol. 497] Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Well, think about it.
A Will you repeat that?
Q Why don’t you read it yourself. Read it out loud.
A “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you 

say can and will be used against you in a court of law”.
Q All right. Now, you understand what that means?
A It means anything that you say against yourself, 

that it can be used against you in court.
Q I mean, you understand all those simple words, 

don’t you?
A Yes.
Q Now, what about the third thing there? Read that.
A “You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have 

him present with you while you are being questioned”.
Q Well, now, you understand what that means, don’t 

you?
A Yes. “I f  you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one 

will be appointed to represent you before any questioning 
if you wish one”.

Q Well, now, you understand those simple words, don’t 
you?

A Yes, sir, I do.
MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. PICCION E:
Q Claude, when you and Capt. Picard had the con­

versation before the statement came up, did he at any 
time say to you that if you couldn’t afford to employ a



122

lawyer, in other words if you didn’t have any money, if  
you couldn’t afford to hire a lawyer that one would be 
appointed to you and furnished to you and that you had 
a right to have that lawyer present before you answered 
any questions?
[fob 498] A No, sir.

Q He didn’t say nothing like that. Is that right?
A No, sir, he didn’t say it.
Q And if he did say that, you didn’t hear it?
A Well, that’s right.
Q Or you didn’t understand it.
A Well, he— if he did say it I didn’t  hear it.
Q And if  he did say it, did you ever give up your 

right to have a lawyer?
A No, sir.
Q Why did you want to call your mother?
A Well, I mean, at least, I was in trouble.
Q You were in some trouble.
A Yes, sir.
Q You wanted to tell your mother about it?
A Yes, sir.
Q You had something in mind, that maybe your 

mother could help you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you at that time even know a lawyer?
A No, sir.
Q And in fact you had no lawyer. Is that right?
A No, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: That’s it, Your Honor.
MR. DeBLANC: That’s all.

(Witness excused)
THE COURT: Gentlemen, in connection with this 

testimony outside of the presence of the jury which we 
have just completed having to do with the legality under 
our law of the alleged statement given by the accused, 
let me just make this statement for clarity. Insofar as 
ffol. 499] confessions generally are concerned, under the 
Miranda case which we’ve been talking about which is 
the last expression of the United States Supreme Court 
on the subject, I think I indicated earlier that by no



123

stretch of the imagination did Miranda indicate that con­
fessions were no longer legal. Miranda very definitely 
states that confessions remain a proper element of law 
enforcement and that any statement given freely and 
voluntarily without compelling inferences is admissible. 
I think that’s a basic statement as elicitated by Miranda.

Now insofar as this particular statement in this case, 
the Court concludes rather easily, certainly there was no 
evidence to indicate it to the contrary in my opinion, that 
there were any promises or threats or menaces or menac­
ing statements, intimidations or any treatment accorded 
the accused to compel him to make the confession.

Now Mr. Alexander, the accused, indicated something 
that he was offered coffee and a cigarette and he pre­
sumed that to be a bribe. I think that would be stretching 
the point to a ridiculous nature, if this Court considered 
that that was a threat or a promise.

I think the United States Supreme Court recognized 
that their language indicates in the Miranda case that, 
they don’t use a percentage, but their conclusion is that 
practically all of the confessions are gotten under a police 
atmosphere, a police station, interrogation room court­
house, any such building or room. And of course the ma­
jority opinion in Miranda was a five/four decision.

The intention back of Miranda wTas to eliminate v/hat 
existed and may still exist and probably does exist to 
some extent as to some of the treatment that people who 
[fol. 500] -were accosted or arrested were given by law 
enforcement officers in some instances. I don’t think we 
can kid ourselves and say that these situations didn’t ex­
ist. And certainly for that reason you can see the logic 
and the equity of the decision in Miranda insofar as the 
availability and the admissibility of confessions which 
were given under duress and under abnormal conditions 
and without a person being advised of their constitutional 
rights, particularly under the Fifth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution.

Now in this case Miranda does not indicate any specific 
method in which a waiver of rights may be given by an 
accused. They indicate a guideline as to warnings. In 
other words, Miranda says this, that an accused must be,



124

and of course I think Miranda presupposes also, I think 
it’s clear by reading the decision that we’re talking about 
a preinterrogation situation, an interrogation instituted 
and inaugurated by any law enforcement agency or of­
ficer. Miranda anticipates interrogation. Certainly by 
reading Miranda it does not by any means in my opinion 
indicate that police officers cannot interrogate one accused 
of crime or apprehended or in the custody of the officers.

They say that, Mr. Policeman, if you’re going to inter­
rogate this man you’ve got to warn him of his constitu­
tional rights and that is to remain silent, he has the right 
to remain silent, he doesn’t have to speak, but if he does 
speak, if he does indicate, that if he does, anything he 
says may be used against him in a court of law, that 
language or similar language, that he is entitled to an 
attorney to be present and that if he can’t afford an 
attorney one will be appointed for him. Now that’s a 
guideline that they indicate.
[fob 501] Now in this case there was testimony and it’s 
not— of course I ’m a trier of the facts on this case to de­
termine the legality of this thing. I t ’s a difficult thing 
for a Judge to do. But it’s difficult for me to say that 
these three police officers were lying. I can’t say that. 
I think that all of us know that the Miranda and the Es- 
cobeda case has been on everybody’s lips for the last—  
when was Escobeda, 1963, whatever it was, ’62, ’63— 
well, since that time and with the amplification by Mi­
randa, those cases and their contents have been practi­
cally a byword in legal circles and in police circles. You 
can read the paper every day where you see the police 
departments are being made to comprehend and under­
stand the requirements of the Miranda and Escobeda 
case.

So as I say, I don’t  think you have any police officer 
today who doesn’t have some knowledge of the require­
ments of that case. I ’m satisfied that the police officers in 
this instance, Capt. Picard, and as testified to by the other 
two officers, with some little variations I might say which 
are not at all unusual. I don’t think—just like you can 
get three people that viewed an accident and you might



125

get three completely different versions as to the exact par­
ticularities of it.

I ’m satisfied generally that the warning as required 
by Miranda was given and I ’m going to further rule that 
this accused knew his rights and that he waived his 
rights in the absence of any particular direction on the 
part of Miranda which it does not include as to what is 
a waiver of rights— as I say, Miranda uses the word 
waiver, but Miranda does not say that it will be waived 
in such and such and such and such and such a way.

I ’m satisfied that there has been a compliance with the 
[fol. 502] mandate of Miranda and I will consequently 
rule that the statement, and I don’t know its format as I 
said as to whether its— it’s been referred to as an oral 
statement, unsigned. But whatever it may be, I ’m going 
to rule that it was legally gotten, that it was free and 
voluntary and that the accused— and that the require­
ments of Miranda were conformed to in this interroga­
tion.

MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, before reserving a bill, 
may I call to the Court’s attention respectfully forty-nine 
and fifty-one in Miranda, Paragraphs 49-51, concerning 
waiver, Your Honor. I f  the interrogation continues with­
out the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, 
a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate 
that the defendant—

THE COURT: Where’s that, Mr. Piccione?
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, that’s on page 1628 of 

the Volume—
THE COURT: All right, I have it.
MR. PICCION E: A heavy burden rests on the gov­

ernment to demonstrate that the defendant— the govern­
ment has the burden of proving that the defendant—

THE COURT: I ’ve really considered all of that, Mr. 
Piccione, and there’s another statement on the next page 
under fifty-five and fifty-seven. The Court is completely 
familiar with it. As I say, I made the decision and I 
think it’s correct.

I think that Miranda must be approached, No, 1, 
equity, fairness and justice, but also the practical aspects 
of it and I don’t think there’s any question in my mind



126

that this is a proper situation and that Miranda has been 
complied with.

MR. PICCION E: I wish to reserve a bill to the ruling 
[fol. 503] of the Court which I understand to have the 
effect of permitting the statement before the jury to go 
into an introduction of the confession or to define a con­
fession for such weight as it may carry, we accept and 
reserve a bill of exceptions and make a part of it the evi­
dence in its entirety that was taken out of the presence 
of the jury on the manner in which the statement was 
taken, the manner in which the accused was or to what 
degree he was warned of his rights, that entire record, 
up to this point, and make a part of it the ruling of the 
Court, the words of the Judge, and reserving our rights 
of course to delineate in briefs the basis of law of our 
objection.

THE COURT: All right, let that be noted.
Off the record.

(Informal discussion off the record.)

MR. PICCIONE: Add to my bill of exceptions the 
objections that I previously made in the opening of this 
record to the effect that the State had rested its case and 
that this effort to bring in the confession now comes too 
late.

MR. DeBLANC: F irst of all the State has given a 
copy of this statement which is oral but reduced to writ­
ing, but the State did give a copy under a prayer for 
oyer many weeks ago which we felt was necessary and 
appropriate. Then after that we also gave notice to him 
without the jury knowing it that we were intending to 
use this, so we have laid our foundation insofar as the 
requirements of law is concerned. But we’re confronted 
with the situation where had we attempted to introduce 
this in the presence of the jury which we felt we could 
have done and had we not succeeded for some reason or 
other in proving completely to the satisfaction of the Court 
the admissibility of the evidence then we would have had 
a situation where we might have had reversible error so 
[fol. 504] that’s why we asked that the jury be retired 
so that we could prove the voluntary nature of the con-



127

fession out of the presence of the jury and again prove 
it in the presence of the jury for the reason that they 
should be able to determine the weight to be given this 
confession.

THE COURT: Off the record.
(Informal discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: Let’s take a short recess.
(Thereupon a short recess was taken, after which 
the following proceedings were had:)

THE COURT: Let’s bring the jury back in, please.

(At this time the jury returned to the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Do you wish to waive the polling of 
the jury?

MR. PICCIONE: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DeBLANC: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The accused was on the stand. The 

State may proceed.

Thereupon,
CLAUDE ALEXANDER

the Defendant herein, resumed the stand and testified 
further as follows:

CROSS EXAMINATION (CONT’D.)
*  *  *  *

[fol. 524] Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Now, you said that 
you told your lawyer what you had done that night and 
you told someone else. Who was that?

A I told my lawyer and two persons.
Q Who else you told?
A Well, Shirley Picard and—
Q Where did you tell Shirley Picard—you’re talking 

about the police officer?
A Yes, sir.
() Where did you tell Shirley Picard what you did that 

night?
A In his office.



128

Q Was anyone there when you told him that? Who 
was there when you gave this statement, told Capt. Pic­
ard what you did?

A Well, at the time they had nobody there.
Q Nobody else?
A No.
Q Did someone come in while you were talking to 

him?
A After we got through talking.
Q Who came in?
A Sidney Broussard.
Q Anyone else?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know Officer Navarre?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he come around there?

_ A Well, I saw him when I walked in the police sta­
tion.

Q Now, you gave this statement in what building?
A Uh, let me see.

[fol. 525] Q Is that the police station?
A Yes, sir, that’s it.
Q In what room of the police station, do you know?
A Well, I know it was in a room.
Q What was in that room, do you remember?
A A desk and a couple of chairs.
Q Was there a couple of doors that went out of that 

room?
A I think two.
Q Two doors?
A Yes.
Q What time was that about?
A It was about twenty to two.
Q Twenty to two?
A Yes, sir.
Q How were you dressed?
A I had a white T shirt and a brown pair of pants 

and blue tennis.
Q Was that the same clothes you had on when you 

went to the Yarc Club?
A Yes, sir.



129

Q When you talked to him were you sitting down or 
standing up?

A I was sort of laying down.
Q Laying down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q You were laying down on what?
A Well, at least, I was trying to lay down because I 

was tired and I was trying to get some sleep.
Q You were sitting on a chair, though, weren’t you?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 526] Q You were slouching in a chair sort of?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, you’re on a chair now. How were you sit­

ting? Show the jury how you were sitting.
A Well—
Q You can’t sit in that chair like that?
A Well, I could try.
Q Okay, try.
A I was sort of like this (indicating).
Q Okay. How did you give him that statement? He 

asked you questions and you answered them or what?
A Well, not exactly asked me questions.
Q Exactly what did he tell you?
A At least he tried to put words in my mouth.
Q Oh, I see. How long did this conversation last be­

tween you and him?
A Well, we ain’t had no conversation, no kind of a 

conversation.
Q I mean, how long did this statement you have with 

him last?
A Well, about two thirty.
Q Until about two thirty?
A Yes.
Q Well, when he was talking to you, did he write 

anything down on a piece of paper?
A He did.
Q And did you see him type anything on a typewriter?
A Yes.
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, for the sake of the 

record, I would like to make it clear that it is clear that



130

[fol. 527] that I have before the Court objected to what 
we’re now getting into to the questioning under his con­
dition and the statements that we’re now getting into on 
constitutional grounds, and we’ve reserved our bill of ex­
ceptions on any of this as being legally admissible in this 
trial.

THE COURT: And the Court has overruled your ob­
jection.

MR. PICCIONE: And we reserved our bill of excep­
tions.

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Then he would write. Where 
was he getting the information that he was putting on 
this typewriter, do you know?

A From a sheet of paper.
Q From the paper he wrote on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now while you were talking to him like that, did 

somebody come in and bring coffee to people in there?
A Somebody did come bring some coffee.
Q Did they ask you if you wanted a cup of coffee?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you drink one?
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t want one?
A No, sir.
Q Did they offer you any cigarettes?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you smoke?
A Yes, sir.
Q They offered you to have a smoke with them?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you take any?
A No, sir.

[fol. 528] Q Now during this entire conversation you 
were seated in a chair, is that right, slouched in the 
chair?

A Yes, sir.
Q About what time had you gotten up that morning?
A Which morning?
Q The morning of, you know, the night before?
A The Sunday?



131

Q Yes.
A Well, about seven or eight o’clock that morning.
Q Now after Shirley Picard wrote this on a type­

writer, did he show it to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you read it?
A I read half of it.
Q You read half of it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you understand what was on there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you recognize this if  you saw it, if I read 

it out to you what was said on this thing?
A Yes, sir, I would.
Q Did you tell him, “On or about nine p.m. or nine 

thirty p.m. last night I left my house” ?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you tell him, “I met Allen Breaux on Lillian 

Road” ?
A No, sir.
Q Did you tell him, “We decided to go to the country 

club which is across the street from Betty’s Diner on Gil­
man Road” ?

A No, sir.
Q About how much of this, the part that you read, 

[fol. 529] was stuff that you told him and how much was 
not?

A Well, let me see— I didn’t tell him exactly, you 
know, what you’re telling me nowT.

Q Oh, I see. You could have told him the same thing 
in different words?

A I ain’t told him the same thing in different words 
either. I told him something else.

Q You didn’t tell him what I just said?
A No, sir.
Q, Did you say, “Allen Breaux asked me if I wanted 

to go with him and break in a place at Girard Park where 
he works” ?

A No, sir.
Q Did you tell him, “I told him okay” ?
A No, sir.



132

Q Did you tell him, “We walked back to Allen 
Breaux’s house between Lillian Road and Pierce Street” ?

A No, sir, I didn’t.
Q Did you tell him, “Allen Breaux took a crowbar 

from inside a 1956, ’57 or ’58 light greenish and white 
Oldsmobile and put the crowbar between his belt” ?

A No, sir, I didn’t.
Q Did you tell him, “Allen Breaux and I walked to 

Girard Park and when we got in the park on a road by 
the lake we saw a white boy and a white girl walking on 
the road by the ridge” ?

A No, sir, I didn’t.
Q Did you say, “Allen Breaux said, ‘You want to go 

and get the boy and the girl’, and I said, ‘Okay’ ” ?
A No, sir, I didn’t say that either.
Q Did you say, “We walked up to the white boy and 

the white girl and the white boy told Allen Breaux if he 
[fol. 530] wanted his money he could have it” ?

A No, sir, I didn’t say that.
Q Did you say, “Allen Breaux took the money and 

hit the white boy in the face and the white boy fell down 
on the ground saying he couldn’t see” ?

A No, sir, I didn’t say that either.
Q Did you say, “Allen Breaux told the white girl if 

she wouldn’t do right he would have to shoot— he would 
shoot both of them” ?

A No, sir.
Q Did you say, “The white girl told us if— she would 

give us more money if  we would leave them alone” ?
A No, sir.
Q Did you say, “The white boy said, ‘Linda, do right 

and they are going to leave us alone’ ” ?
A No, sir, I didn’t say that.
Q Did you say, “Allen Breaux jumped on the white 

girl and threw her on the ground and pulled her dress off 
and got on top of her and went with her” ?

A No, sir, Shirley Picard said that.
Q Did you say, “Allen Breaux stayed on top of the 

white girl for about forty or forty-five minutes” ?
A No, sir.



133

Q Did you say, “I was about to get on top of the 
white girl when the cops came” ?

A No, sir.
Q Did you say, “Allen Breaux ran down the ditch and 

I went in a culvert under the bridge” ?
A No, sir.
Q Did you say, “The police shot at me and I told him 

[fol. 531] I was coming out” ?
A No, sir, I didn’t say that.
Q Did you say, “I came out and broke out running 

and the police caught me about two or three blocks away” ?
A No, sir.
Q So what I read to you then you deny making that 

statement to Shirley Picard at the police station at ap­
proximately two thirty o’clock in the morning on Sep­
tember the 4th, 1967?

A That’s right, I deny it.
Q Now, can you tell the jury what you told him if 

this is not it?
A Yes, I could. I told Capt. Shirley Picard that, at 

least, that I left—let me see. At least I started from 
about three thirty, four o’clock. I started about— I told 
him that when I left from my house I went to Truman 
Palace Cafe and that when I got there I met— at least 
I met Frances and we stayed there a few minutes and 
we left to go to her house— I mean, to my house.

Well, you know, he asked me my name and I gave him 
my name, he asked me my address and all that.

Q Go ahead with the story. Tell us what you told him.
A He asked me my name, my address, and then that’s 

when he broke in. He said, “What happened in Girard 
Park” ?

Q What did you tell him?
A I didn’t tell him nothing.
Q You didn’t tell him a thing?
A No, sir, not to—not when he got to that part there.
Q Well, where did he get all this thing, this thing that 

he told you and you didn’t  give him any information—
A Those are words that he tried to put in my mouth, 

[fol. 532] He wanted me to say that, but I didn’t. That’s 
why when he give the paper to me and I read it, he asked



134

me to sign it, and I just threw the pencil and the paper 
back to him and told him I didn’t say that.

Q Well, then, there must have been something you 
said. Didn’t you say a while ago that there was some­
thing that you said that was correct in there?

A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Now, what is it in there that’s correct?
A I told him—■
Q You want to look at it?
A I could look at it.
Q Look at it and see which part of this statement 

you told him and which you didn’t tell him.
A I told him that I left my house about nine o’clock, 

nine thirty, and I left to go to Carencro.
Q What else you told him?
A I told him my name, my address, you know, where 

I live at and all that.
Q Well, then, you must have told him something else, 

didn’t you?
A No, we didn’t talk that much.
Q You just told him about nine, nine thirty you left 

your house to go to Carencro?
A No, sir. I told him my name, my address and 

where, you know— I told him about when I met the girl 
and all that and that’s when I told him I was sleepy, if 
he could bring me to ja il or just send me to my house so 
I could get me some sleep because I was tired and that 
was it.

Q Well, did you tell Capt. Picard what happened to 
[fol. 533] you after nine thirty?

A Well, he asked me and that’s as far as I got; that’s 
as far as I got. Then he started asking me about what 
happened in the park and all that.

Q Well, in the meantime while you were telling him 
that, that’s all you told him?

A That’s as far as he would let me get.
Q And all this information that’s on there was some­

thing that you did not tell him.
A No, I didn’t tell him that but he tried to— .
Q Now, did he ask you to sign this statement?
A Yes.



135

Q And what did you tell him?
A At least he let me read it first, and he told me, he 

asked me if I wanted to sign it. And when I got half­
way I threw it back to him, I threw him the paper and 
the pencil back to him, and I stood up and I told him that 
I wasn’t signing it because I didn’t say it.

Q Well, did you mention to him why?
A Yes, sir, because I didn’t say what they had on 

this sheet of paper.
Q Did you mention to him anything about wanting to 

get your shoes back?
A Yes, sir, I did. I asked him where my shoes was.
Q Did you make that a condition? Did you tell him 

you would sign it if you would get your shoes back?
A No, sir. I asked him that when he was through 

questioning me.
MR. DeBLANC: Now, the State announces that it’s 

going to ask the witness this question one more time with 
[fol. 534] the intention to impeach the witness’ testimony.

Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) I ’m asking you now, Claude 
Alexander, did you or did you not make the statement 
that I just read out to you to Capt. Shirley Picard on 
September the 4th, 1967, about two thirty o’clock a.m. 
in the Lafayette City Police office in the City of Lafayette?

A Not that statement there, but I made, you know—
Q That statement there.
A Not this one there.
Q You did not make that statement?
A I did not.
MR. DeBLANC: The State announces that it is going 

to impeach the testimony of the witness by the testimony 
of Shirley Picard and other officers.

We tender the witness.
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, is it necessary at this 

time that I proceed directly on this question of the state­
ment or can I do that after the officers are heard?

THE COURT: Let me see you both, gentlemen.

(Thereupon counsel for the respective parties ap­
proached the Bench and conferred with the Court out 
of the hearing of the Reporter.)



136

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCION E:

Q Mr. Alexander, on that morning that you were ar­
rested, had you been hit on the head?

A Yes, sir.
Q And is that that blackeye that was shown in that 

photograph?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 535] Q And how did you feel as a result of that? 
A Well, I felt kind of dizzy.
Q Had you had any sleep that night so far?
A No, sir.
Q How did you feel as to sleeping?
A Well, like I said, I was just about sleeping when 

he was questioning me.
Q Before you were questioned on this occasion by 

Capt. Shirley Picard, did you say anything to him about 
wanting to get some sleep?

A Yes, sir.
Q What did you say?
A I said, “Take me to jail or take me home so I can 

get me some sleep”.
Q And what did he answer?
A “Not until, you know, you tell me what happened 

in the park”.
Q Not until who tells him what happened in the park? 
A Not until I tell him what happened in the park.
Q Did you make any other request such as to use 

the telephone?
A Yes, sir.
Q What request did you make?
A I asked him to use the telephone.
Q To whom did you make that request?
A To Capt. Shirley Picard.
Q Who did you want to call?
A My mother.
Q Did he let you make the call?
A No, sir.

[fol. 536] Q Did you ever make the call?



137

A No, sir.
Q Now, did you sign this typewritten statement?
A No, sir.
Q Now actually when Capt. Shirley Picard was ques­

tioning you, did he type it first or did he write it down 
in longhand first?

A He wrote it down in longhand.
Q All right. And then he typed it from his longhand 

notes. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
ME. PICCIONE: Your Honor, we move for a sub­

poena duces tecum on Shirley Picard for his longhand 
notes.

MR. DeBLANC: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, let such a subpoena be is­

sued.
Q (By Mr. Piccione) Now, Claude, if  you know, was 

there a Court Reporter there or a young lady or a man 
trained in stenography taking down the questions and the 
answers word for word?

A No, sir.
Q Did anybody take down your answers word for 

word?
A At least Shirley Picard was taking down some, you 

know—he was writing.
Q Do you know what he wrote down?
A No, sir.
Q All right. In view of what you read on this state­

ment here, do you think he wrote down what you said?
A No, sir.
Q Is this what you said?
A No, sir.

[fol. 537] Q Now, did you give another statement the 
following morning—

A Yes, sir.
Q — after you had some sleep?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who did you give that statement to?
A To Sid Gilbert.
Q Detective Sidney Gilbert of Carencro?
A Yes, sir.



138

Q Now, how did he record your statement?
A Well, he took a little pad out of his pocket and he 

had a pen and— at least I think it was a tape recorder.
Q Describe the tape recorder.
A It was, you know, a little black object.
Q A little black object?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you think it was at first?
A Well, I thought it was a radio at first.
Q Did you see him turn it on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were there two little wheels that were turning?
A No, sir. At least I didn’t  see that, you know.
Q Do you know whether it was a tape recorder or 

not?
A No, sir. As far as I can say is that I saw him when 

he turned a knob.
Q Before you all started talking?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after he turned the knob he had it there on 

the table?
A Yes, sir. He had it sort of in the. front of him.

[fol. 538] Q And did he ask you some questions?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you then tell him what happened that 

night?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, did you tell him what’s contained on this 

statement here?
A No, sir.
Q What did you tell him?
A I told him that, you know, the same thing that I ’m 

testifying today. That’s what I told him.
Q You told him the day after this thing occurred that 

you’re telling us in court today. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was anybody else there besides Sidney Gilbert?
A No, sir.
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, we move for a sub­

poena on Sidney Gilbert of Carencro, and subpoena duces 
tecum of what I believe to be a recorded statement, it



139

might be pertinent in this matter, taken on September 
the 5th—

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Was that the day after you 
were arrested or the same day?

A It was the Monday.
Q Was it still on that same day?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time of day?
A It was sort of in the night.
Q It was the night of Monday?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, taken on September the 4th, 1967.
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 539] THE COURT: Does the State have any ob­
jection?

MR. DeBLANC: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, let a subpoena be issued to 

Sidney Gilbert and let a subpoena duces tecum be issued 
for the production of what?

MR. PICCION E: Of the tape recording of the state­
ment taken by him at that time from the defendant.

THE COURT: All right.
Q (By Mr. Piccione) Now, Claude, you’ve already 

answered the questions substantially that you didn’t say 
these particular sentences that are typed on here and 
that you said what you did say to Capt. Shirley Picard.

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, who brought up the name Allen Breaux?
A Capt. Shirley Picard.
Q When Capt. Shirley Picard questioned you was any­

body else present?
A Not at the time.
Q Were there some times when you all were alone and 

some times when you all were not?
A Yes, sir,— no, sir, they had some officers.
Q What other officers were around there?
A Well, they had some officers, you know, coming in 

and out.
Q Was Officer Sidney Broussard there?
A Well, I didn’t see him.
Q You didn’t see him?



140

A No, sir.
Q Was Officer Navarre there?
A He was in the police station but he wasn’t in the 

[fol. 540] same room that I was in.
Q Well, when he questioned you essentially on this 

thing here, was anybody else in there besides you and 
Capt. Shirley Picard?

A No, sir.
Q Now, if it is stated later that Capt. Shirley Picard 

was on one side of you and Officer Navarre was on the 
other side of you, is that correct, when Capt. Picard 
questioned you?

A No, sir.
Q That’s not correct?
A That’s not correct.
Q When they questioned you, were you handcuffed or 

not?
A Not the, you know, the whole while.
Q Not the whole while?
A No, sir. They came and taken them off after­

wards.
Q Now during the time that they were questioning 

you, how did you feel mentally?
A Well, like I said, I was dizzy and I was sleepy.
Q Were you having any trouble keeping awake?
A Yes, sir. My eyes, they were just about closed.
Q You told them that?
A Yes, I told them that.
Q Did you try to tell Capt. Picard what happened?
A No, sir.
Q Would he let you tell it?
A No, sir. He kept on interrupting, saying, “didn’t 

you and this person do that” and “didn’t you do this” and 
all that.

Q Was he suggesting to you, “didn’t you do this or 
that” ?

A Yes, sir.
Q Did he ask you, “Didn’t  you rape the girl” ?

[fol. 541] A Yes, he did.
Q What did you tell him?



141

A I just nodded my head. I done like this (indicat­
ing).

Q Did you continuously and repeatedly answer that 
question, “Did you rape the girl”, in the negative, that is 
that you didn’t do it? Did you repeatedly deny that you 
raped the girl?

A No, sir.
Q Did you deny it, that you didn’t do it?
A Yes, sir, I did deny it.
Q You did deny it.
A Yes, sir.
Q So that when his statement says that you said that 

you were standing in line, is that true or not?
A It ’s not true.
Q Do you know about how many times you indicated 

to him with your head or otherwise that you did not do 
it?

A At least after I nodded my head a couple of times 
telling him that it wasn’t me, I didn’t tell him that in 
words, but, you know, I was shaking my head. Then I 
sort of fell asleep.

Q When he gave you the statement back, the one you 
refused to sign, did you read it?

A Yes, sir.
Q Did it say in here that you denied that you said 

you did not rape the girl?
A Yes, I told him that I didn’t rape the girl.
Q _ That’s what you told him, but was that repeated 

in this written statement?
A No, sir.

[fol. 542] Q Now, Claude, did you make any other 
statements than the ones you have mentioned?

A No, sir.
Q That’s the only statements you made?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at no time did you ever make a written state­

ment either in your own hand or any written statement 
that you signed. Is that right?

A Yes, sir.
Q You have never signed a statement in connection 

with this matter.



142

A No, sir.
Q And when they took this statement of yours that’s 

referred to here, was there a recording machine there? 
A No, sir, not that I know of.
Q You didn’t see them use a recording machine.
A No, sir.
Q The voices weren’t taken down as far as you know. 
A No, sir.
Q At that time had you been advised by an attorney? 
A No, sir.
Q Was any member of your family present?
A No, sir.
Q Claude, have you told us the truth today?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Is that the truth?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can we depend on that?
A Y bs sir.
MR. PICCION E: That’s all.

[fol. 543] RECROSS EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. DeBLANC:

Q Did they take a picture of you that night?
A Yes, they did.
Q Was that before or after the conversation you had 

with Capt. Picard?
A It was after.
Q Afterwards?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were still sleepy then?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long afterwards did they take that picture of 

you?
A Well, it took about forty-five minutes.
Q About forty-five minutes afterwards?
_A For them to question me it took about forty-five 

minutes. It was about fifteen-—it was close to three.
Q When they took the picture it was close to three? 
A Yes.



143

Q And where was it they took the picture?
A In another room.
Q Well, the picture that Mr. Piccione showed you and 

introduced in evidence, that’s the picture that they took 
of you?

A Yes.
Q Is this the picture they took of you?
A No, sir. They took that picture of me, this one 

here, because I remember the next day my momma came 
bring me a black—pants with a black belt and they took 
a picture of me in a white T shirt and a brown pants. 
I made a mistake on that picture there this morning.

Q Oh, this was not the picture they took of you at 
[fol. 544] that time.

A No, sir. I t  was the other one with the white T 
shirt and the brown pants. They took that one the 
following day I think.

Q So this one was not taken that night.
A No, sir.
Q I show you this State Exhibit “A” and ask you if 

that’s the picture they took of you.
A Yes, sir.
Q That’s the picture?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you see any marks on your face in that picture?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where?
A Right here.
Q You see a mark on your face?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where?
A On the left side of my eye.
Q Your left eye?
A Yes, sir.
Q You haven’t been hit lately, have you?
A No, sir.
Q Well, where did you get that spot on your left eye?
A My left eye?
Q Yes.
A That was in Crowley about three months after they 

picked me up.



144

Q Well, you have— this dark object on your eye, that 
was there— at that time it was on your eye, wasn’t it? 
[fol. 545] A No, sir.

Q Oh, it was not?
A No, sir.
Q But this is the way you looked then at the time, 

this picture here.
A Yes, sir, but my eye was swollen.
Q Well, does it appear swollen to you in this picture?
A Yes, it does.
Q You were sleepy then?
A Yes, I sure was.
Q But this is not the picture that was taken that day.
A No, sir. I t  was taken the following day.
Q Now, were you mistreated in any way while they 

were asking you these questions?
A Well, I mean, you know, not exactly mistreated 

but, I mean, just the idea of him trying to bribe me by 
giving me— offering me coffee and a cigarette and all 
that.

Q Oh, he tried to bribe you by giving you coffee?
A Yes, sir, and a cigarette.

_ Q Well, except for trying to give you some coffee and 
cigarettes, they didn’t  mistreat you any kind of way.

A No, sir. They tried to talk— they kind of talked 
to me rough.

Q Well, how did you happen to fall asleep while you 
were being questioned?

A I was wore out.
Q They let you sleep a while?
A Well, they must have. I mean, I had my eyes 

closed.
Q He was trying to find out, as I understand, what 

happened in the park. Is that right?
[fol. 546] A Yes, sir.

Q All right. Now according to your testimony be­
fore this jury you were trying to be a good Samaritan 
and try to help this woman in distress, right?

A Yes, sir.
Q Well, now, why didn’t you tell him that?



145

A Well, I tried to tell it to him, but he kept on trying 
to put other words in my mouth.

Q But did you tell him that?
A No, sir. I mean, he didn’t give me time to tell 

him. He kept on “didn’t you and this person do this and 
that”. He got me mad.

Q Now, you say Capt. Picard brought up the name of 
Allen Breaux.

A Yes, sir.
Q Well, who brought up the name of Linda?
A Well, it wasn’t me. I mean, I didn’t know the 

girl’s name, me. It couldn’t have been me.
Q Well, who could it have been that brought that 

name up?
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, I object to any refer­

ence to the name Linda. Unless I ’m mistaken, I fail 
to see it mentioned anywhere in this statement.

MR. DeBLANC: “The white boy said, ‘Linda, do 
right and they’re going to leave us alone’ ”. That’s Line 
15.

We tender the witness.

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCIONE:
Q At the time you gave that statement, Claude, do 

you know whether or not Capt. Picard had talked to the 
young white boy? Do you know whether or not he had 
talked to the young white boy?
[fol. 547] A No, sir.

Q: You had seen the white boy after you were ar­
rested?

A No, sir.
Q Oh, you didn’t see him in the park after you were 

arrested?
A No, sir.
Q You don’t know whether the white boy had talked 

to the police or not.
MR. DeBLANC: Your Honor, we’re going to object 

unless he makes it plain as to what white boy, what 
police, what statement.



146

Q (By Mr. Piccione) Well, did you see any white 
boy, any white boy, in the park after you were arrested? 

A No, sir.
Q Or when they took you back to the station.
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t see him at the station?
A No, sir.
Q Whether the police had taken his statement or not 

and he had informed them of anything, you don’t know 
about that.

A No, sir.
Q Now, who brought up the name Linda?
A Capt. Shirley Picard.
MR. PICCION E: Your Honor, that’s all we have of 

this witness.
MR. DeBLANC: No further questions.

*  *  *  *

[fol. 552]

STA TE’S REBU TTA L TESTIMONY 

Thereupon,
SH IRLEY PICARD

was recalled as a witness, and having been previously 
duly sworn, was examined and testified further as fol­
lows :

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

B Y  MR. DeBLANC:
Q Capt. Picard, do you know the accused Claude 

Alexander when you see him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you see him in court?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you point him out to the jury?
A Right there, sir.
Q Did you have occasion to see and talk to him on 

September the 4th, 1967, at about two thirty in the 
morning?

A Yes, sir.



147

Q Where was that?
A Lafayette Police Station on Pierce Street,
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, I believe that technic­

ally speaking I ’m obliged to repeat my objection to this 
line of testimony as being inadmissible against the ac­
cused for the constitutional reasons I have heretofore 
urged.

THE COURT: Yes, and the Court repeats that the 
Court has overruled your objection.

MR. PICCIONE: And we have reserved our bill of 
exceptions.

THE COURT: That is correct.
[fol. 553] Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) At that time did he 
make a statement to you?

A Yes, sir.
Q Was that statement that he made reduced to writ­

ing?
A Yes, sir.
Q How?
A Longhand and then I typed it.
Q And what did you do with your notes you had?
A I threw it away in the wastepaper basket,
Q Is that your regular procedure?
A Yes, sir.
Q I show you this instrument marked State Exhibit 

“A-13” for Identification—
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, I ’m going to object to 

the witness being shown any paper unless it be first tied 
to how it’s connected with the accused. The State has 
said they will offer an oral statement. Now here we 
see a written piece of paper. That’s not oral. And I 
object to the witness being shown anything unless it’s 
established by the proper foundation that this has any­
thing to do with an oral statement.

MR. DeBLANC: We’ll withdraw the question.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Now, you said that the state­

ment that he made to you was oral and you wrote it down 
on a piece of paper and then type it up.

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you have the statement that you typed up?
A Yes, sir.



148

Q Would you tell the jury what that statement was? 
You wrote that yourself?

A Yes, sir. I typed it.
[fol. 554] Q You typed it yourself?

A Yes, sir.
Q Would you take it out and read that stattment to 

the jury.
MR. PICCIONE: I object to him reading anything 

in writing, Your Honor. The proper question is what 
did the accused say, not what did Capt. Shirley Picard 
type down. It  is improper for him to read what he 
typed out. An oral statement was what I was advised 
of, an oral statement is what is alleged. A statement 
of this man, not of that man. Let him testify to what 
this man said from his memory, not from his typing, not 
signed by this man. This is an oral statement, not a 
written statement. I say that’s inadmissible.

MR. DeBLANC: We’ll withdraw the question.
Q (By Mr. DeBlane) What did he tell you?
A He stated that about nine or nine thirty p.m. he 

left his house. He met Allen Breaux on Lillian Road. 
They decided to go to the Country Club which is across 
the street from Betty’s Lounge on Gilman Road. When 
they got in front of the Country Club on Gilman Road, 
they decided to go for a walk. Allen Breaux asked him 
if he wanted to go with him and break in a place some- 
wheres in the park where he works. He said okay.

MR. PICCION E: Ju st a moment, Captain. What are 
you looking at there?

THE W ITN ESS: Nothing, sir.
MR. PICCOINE: You’re not looking at that paper?
THE W ITN ESS: No, sir.
MR. PICCIONE: All right, sir. Thank you very 

much. I saw you glance down.
THE W ITN ESS: Allen Breaux asked him if he 

[fol. 555] wanted to go in the park, break in a place in 
the park with him where he works in the park. He 
said okay.

They walked to Allen Breaux’s house again and Allen 
Breaux got a crowbar inside of a 1956, ’57 or ’58 light 
greenish and white Oldsmobile and Allen Breaux put the



149

crowbar between his belt. They walked to Girard Park 
and once in Girard Park on a road by a lake they saw a 
white boy and a white girl standing on the road by a 
bridge.

Allen Breaux says, “Let’s get the boy and the girl”. 
Claude said okay. They walked up to the white boy and 
the white girl and the white boy told Allen Breaux if he 
wanted his money he could have it. Allen Breaux took 
the money and hit the white boy in the face and the 
white boy fell on the ground hollering that he could not 
see.

The white girl told him that if she would give him 
more money if they would leave him alone. Allen 
Breaux told the white girl if  she wouldn’t do right they 
would shoot both of them. The white boy then said, 
“Linda, do right and they will leave us alone”.

Allen Breaux jumped on the white girl, threw her on 
the ground, pulled her dress off and went with her. He 
stayed on top the white girl about forty to forty-five min­
utes. He was about to get on the white girl when the 
cops came and Allen Breaux ran in the ditch and he 
ran in the culvert under the bridge.

The policeman shot at him and he told him that he was 
coming out. He came out and broke out running and the 
policeman chased him and caught him three or four 
blocks away.

Q (By Mr. DeBlane) Did you have occasion to talk 
to Rick Arleth in that case?

A Later on that morning.
[fol. 556] Q You hadn’t talked to him at that time?

A No, sir.
Q Had you talked to the girl at that time?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know who she was?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know her name?
A No, sir.
Q And in that statement you referred to her by name.
A Yes, sir.
Q What name?
A Linda.
MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.



150

CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. PICCION E:

Q Captain, to your knowledge had Sidney Broussard 
gone with the girl to the hospital?

A Not at the time, sir.
Q Before you questioned Claude Alexander, had Sidney 

Broussard to your knowledge gone to the hospital with 
the girl?

A I don’t  know, sir.
Q Was Sidney Broussard there when you questioned 

Claude Alexander?
A Yes, sir.
Q You spoke to Sidney Broussard before you ques­

tioned Claude Alexander?
A No, sir.
Q You did not?
A No, sir.
Q Did Sidney Broussard tell you that the girl’s name 

[fol. 557] was Linda?
A No, sir.
Q You deny that you knew the girl’s name was Linda 

before you ever took this statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, Captain, how many tape recorders does the 

Lafayette Police Department have?
A One.
Q I f  another officer reported that they have six or 

seven, would you know whether that’s correct?
A I ’d have to say one.
Q One where?
A One tape recorder which was kept in the juvenile 

office room.
Q In the same building where your office is?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, now, whether there was one or more tape re­

corders, why didn’t you use it so that we’d have the actual 
voices and the word for word of what you said and of 
what the accused said? Why didn’t you do that?



151

A Because I feel my voice don’t- carry too good on a 
tape recorder.

Q You don’t record too well?
A That’s right.
Q In other words, that wouldn’t be as far as these 

statements coming from you, would it? This is more 
accurate than a tape recorder would be in your opinion. 
Is that right, sir?

A In my opinion, yes, sir.
Q So that’s why you didn’t use a tape recorder. Did 

[fol. 558] you think of calling a stenographer and having 
her take down the questions from you and the answers 
from this man?

A No, sir.
Q You didn’t think of that?
A No, sir.
Q You don’t follow" that procedure. That wouldn’t be 

as fair as your taking down the statement in longhand, 
then tearing it up and throwing it in the wastebasket so 
we can’t have it in our subpoena duces tecum—

MR. DeBLANC: I object to the argument, Your 
Honor.

MR. PICCION E: I ’m not arguing. I ’m asking a ques­
tion.

Q (By Mr. Piccione) You don’t- think that’s as fair, 
do you? You can’t produce the paper that you first wrote 
this statement down on, can you?

A No, sir.
Q You tore it up and threw it in the wastebasket.
A I threw it in the wastepaper basket, yes, sir.
Q So then you rehashed the statement on a piece of 

paper and you memorized it and you have testified today 
from memorization word for word what your typewritten 
statement says, haven’t you, Captain?

A I let Alexander read it and he said that’s what 
happened.

Q How about answering my question. Have you mem­
orized your typewritten statement and given it to us word 
for word?

A Yes, sir. I t’s my record.
Q What you said to the jury was word for word, was



152

it not, according to your typewritten statement? Isn’t 
that right?

A Yes, sir.
[fol. 559] Q Now, I ’ve got a photostatic copy of that 
statement. Is it signed by Claude Alexander?

A No, sir.
Q Who is it signed by?
A Shirley Picard; Detective Captain Shirley Picard. 
Q That’s your signature right there?
A Yes, sir.
Q That’s your statement.
A That’s Alexander’s statement.
Q You signed it.
A I signed it.
Q Now as a matter of fact, when you took this state­

ment did you not refuse to permit him to call his mother? 
A No, sir.
Q When you took this statement, did he not tell you 

that he wanted to go to jail so he could sleep?
A No, sir.
Q Because he was pooped.
A No, sir.
Q He didn’t tell you that.
A No, sir.
Q Did he slump down in his chair and close his eyes? 
A No, sir.
Q He didn’t do that.
A No, sir.
Q Did you permit him to use the phone?
A I handed him the phone, sir.
Q And was he handcuffed at that time?
A No, sir.
Q When had the handcuffs been taken off of him? 

[fol. 560] A When I arrived at the station he wasn’t 
handcuffed.

Q Did he have his clothes on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he have his shoes on?
A No, sir.
Q Who else was there?
A At the time I arrived at the station?



153

Q At the time you questioned him.
A Officer Sidney Broussard and Anthony Navarre.
Q Did Officer Broussard have his pistol on?
A Yes, sir.
Q And he sat in the chair right to the left of Claude? 
A I believe to the right of him.
Q All right, to the right of Claude. And Officer Na­

varre had his pistol on?
A Yes, sir.
Q And he sat to the left of Claude?
A Yes, sir.
0  And you had a little table and you sat on the other 

side of Claude?
A Yes, sir.
Q You had your pistol on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was anybody else there besides the three officers 

and the accused?
A Not that I can recall when he was giving me the 

statement, no, sir.
Q Had he had the advice of counsel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Had he had the advice of an attorney?

[fol. 561] A Yes, sir.
Q Had an attorney advised him?
A No, sir; no, sir.
Q Had he talked to any member of his family?
A Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
Q He was under arrest?
A Yes, sir.
Q He was in custody?
A Yes, sir.
Q So would you say he was surrounded by his friends? 
A I couldn’t judge friends or enemies.
Q Now, is it not a fact that throughout your question­

ing of Claude Alexander he consistently and repeatedly 
denied that he raped anybody.

A He didn’t tell me he raped anybody.
Q Now, that’s not my question. My question is, did 

he not throughout the questioning consistently and repeat­
edly deny that he raped anybody?



154

A No, sir. He said he was about to get on top of 
the white girl.

Q Now, I ’m going to impeach your testimony and I 
want to warn you right now. Did you not on the occasion 
of October 26, 1967, in Abbeville, Louisiana before the 
Honorable Charles Everett in a preliminary hearing in 
this matter, did I not ask you the question:

“Q Did he not consistently and repeatedly deny 
that he had raped anybody” ?

And did you not answer :

“A In a matter of speaking, yes”.

Now, did you or did you not answer yes in Abbeville 
[fob 562] whereas you answered no here in Lafayette?

A I stated that he said he did not rape her, Mr. Pic- 
cione.

Q Well, did you say it like the Court Reporter says, 
“In a matter of speaking, yes” ? Is that your answer?

A I don’t recall it.
Q Well, now, are you going to admit that this is your 

answer or shall I call Mr. Cecil Knickerbocker, the Court 
Reporter?

A He did not admit raping the girl, the white girl; 
he did not.

Q Did you answer to my question in the words, “In a 
matter of speaking, yes” ?

A Possibly, yes, sir.
Q Now, are you going to distinctly admit it or is there 

going to be a question about it? Did you distinctly say 
“In a matter of speaking, yes” ?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, then, look back at your statement that you 

typed out that you say is the statement of Claude Alex­
ander and show me where in that statement you recorded 
that he consistently and repeatedly denied that he raped 
anybody. Now look at your statement and you tell me 
whether you’ve got that in that statement or not.

A No, sir.
Q You say that Claude did that several times yet you 

don’t have it one time, do you, in your written statement?
A No, sir.



155

Q Now, you didn’t think that was very important, did 
you?

A Sir?
Q I say, you didn’t think that was very important, did 

you?
A Evidently not.

[fol. 563] Q Evidently not. In other words, it’s pretty 
clear, isn’t it, that this is not a complete report of what 
Claude Alexander said on that occasion? I t  isn’t com­
plete because it lacks this that he said that you admitted 
he said consistently and repeatedly that he did not rape 
anybody. Am I right?

A He did state that he did not rape anybody.
Q And you don’t have that in this written record of 

the oral statement, do you?
A No, sir. I don’t have that he raped anybody.
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, at this time I ’m going 

to move now that this entire oral statement be rejected 
from this record and that the jury be instructed to dis­
regard it because it is a part of a statement. It  is not a 
statement in its entirety. Only the entirety is admissible 
in evidence and a part of it is not admissible in evidence, 
in all fairness it ought therefore be disregarded and 
struck from the record.

THE COURT: Has the statement been admitted into 
evidence?

MR. PICCION E: Well, Your Honor, it has been read 
into the record and it has been heard by the jury. I 
don’t know how else you’d say it’s being admitted.

THE COURT: Is your objection directed toward the 
admittance of the statement or the testimony of Capt. 
Picard?

MR. PICCIONE: Well, Your Honor, the statement is 
contained within the testimony.

THE COURT: You’re talking about the paper that 
you have in your hand?

MR. PICCION E: No, sir, I ’m talking about the—
THE COURT: You’re talking about the testimony of 

Capt. Picard?
[fol. 564] MR. PICCION E: I ’m talking about the evi­
dence bearing upon the statement that Capt. Picard says



156

he gave him orally. He has testified today about a part 
of the statement. The State did not bring out the part 
which I brought out. I had to bring it out to prove that 
there was more to the statement. I say now that the 
State has tried to bring in a part of the statement and 
to show, Your Honor, that it was a part I had to prove 
the entirety and because they didn’t offer the entirety 
the part is inadmissible.

THE COURT: I ’ll overrule your objection.
MR. PICCION E: And I will reserve a bill of exception 

and make a part of it the entire testimony on this matter 
taken out of the presence of the jury as well as in the 
presence of the jury, particularly the direct and the cross 
examination of Capt. Shirley Picard this morning, his ad­
mission. I make a part of the record also the question 
and the answer appearing on Page 23 of the transcript 
of the record which is already a part of the preliminary 
hearing in this matter and I make a part of it my objec­
tion, my objection that it’s a part of a statement and 
not the entirety and that only the entirety is admissible 
into evidence, Your Honor’s ruling denying my request 
that the jury be instructed to disregard the statement, and 
I reserve my bill of exceptions.

THE COURT: All right, let the bill be noted.
Q (By Mr. Piccionej Was there anything else, Cap­

tain, that Claude said that you failed to put in that writ­
ten report?

A Not to my knowledge, sir.
Q That record that you typed up, that’s a proper re­

port of what he said?
A Yes, sir.

[fol. 565] Q That’s not what you said?
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t suspect that Allen Breaux was involved.
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t suggest that to him.
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t suggest to him that Linda said this and 

that.
A No, sir.
Q You didn’t know the name Linda at that time.
A No-, sir.



157

Q And this was several hours after the man was ar­
rested.

A Yes, sir.
Q You denied that he told you to take him to jail be­

cause he wanted to get some sleep. But I ask you this 
question. Did you not tell him that he wouldn’s get that 
or whatever it was until he told you what happened in 
the park?

A No, sir.
Q You deny that you denied something to him until 

he told you what happened in the park?
A Y a «! c n i*  T H a y i v  i f ,

MR. PICCIONE: That’s all, Your Honor.

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. DeBLANC:
Q Before you started questioning him, did you tell him 

anything?
A I advised him of his rights. He had the right to 

remain silent, anything he said could be used against him 
in court, he was entitled to a lawyer, and if he didn’t have 
one that one would be provided for him, and also that he 
[fol. 566] could stop talking any time he felt like it.

Q Now, was anything offered to him during the course 
of the conversation?

A I offered him the telephone, sir.
Q Was there any coffee brought there?
A Not to my knowledge, sir.
MR. DeBLANC: That’s all.

RECROSS EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCIONE:
Q Captain, you did tell this man, did you, that he had 

a right to be advised by an attorney?
A I advised him that he had a right to a lawyer.
Q And that he had a right to have an attorney 

present when the statement was taken?



158

A No, sir.
Q You didn’t  tell him that?
A No, sir.
Q Nor did you tell him that if he was without money 

and unable to hire a lawyer that one would be appointed 
to him by the Court.

A I advised him if  he couldn’t  afford a lawyer one 
would be provided for him.

Q, You say that under oath that you told him that.
A Yes, sir.
Q And he made no response.
A No, sir.
Q He didn’t say anything, did he?
A No, sir.
Q And was he slumped down in his chair with his eyes 

closed at the time?
[fol. 567] A No, sir.

Q But he didn’t answer you.
A No, sir.
Q Whether he heard you or understood you and knew 

what you were talking about you don’t know, do you?
A No, sir.
MR. PICCION E: Thank you.

RED IRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. DeBLANC:

Q That statement was free and voluntary, was it not?
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, I object to that as a 

conclusion of law and I think we’ve been over that outside 
of the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: I think possibly that’s correct.
MR. DeBLANC: No questions.

(Witness excused)

MR. DeBLANC: The State will call Sidney Broussard.



159

Thereupon,

SID N EY JO SEPH  BROUSSARD, JR .

was recalled as a witness, and having previously been 
duly sworn, was examined and testified further as fol­
lows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY  MR. DeBLANC:

Q Will you state your name, please.
A Sidney Joseph Broussard, Jr .
Q Do you know the accused in this case Claude Alex­

ander.
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have occasion to see him about two thirty 

o’clock in the morning of September the 4th, 1967, at the 
police station?

A Yes, I did.
[fol. 568] Q Where was that in the police station?

A In the detective room.
Q Who was there?
A At the time?
Q Yes.
A Capt. Picard.
Q Did you hear him make a statement to Capt. Picard

there?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that statement? What did it say?
MR. PICCIONE: Your Honor, same objection on any 

oral statement of the accused since it’s another witness.
THE COURT: I ’ll overrule the objection.
MR. PICCION E: And I reserve my bill in the same 

phraseology as before.
THE COURT: All right, let it be noted as such.
MR. DeBLANC: I ’ll rephrase that question.
Q (By Mr. DeBlanc) Before he made that statement, 

did Capt. Picard tell him anything?
A He advised him of his rights, yes, sir.
Q What was that statement?



160

A I have the statement with me. Can I read it or—
Q Well, tell us what you heard.
A Well, his statement was that he left his house around 

nine, nine thirty that night and that he had met subject 
by the name of Allen Breaux on Lillian Road, that they 
walked to the Country Club and when they got to—

MR. PICCION E: If  Your Honor please, pardon the 
interruption, but I ’ve got to interrupt at this time. I ’d 
like to have an opportunity, Your Honor, to question this 
witness, possibly out of the presence of the jury, as Your 
[fol. 569] Honor may rule, on when he learned this be­
cause he’s obviously got a piece of paper in his hand.

THE COURT: Let’s retire the jury.

(At this time the jury retired from the courtroom 
and counsel for the respective parties argued to the 
Court, after which the jury returned to the court­
room. )

THE COURT: Do you waive the polling of the jury?
MR. DeBLANC: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. PICCIONE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.

EXAMINATION (CONT’D.)

B Y  MR. DeBLANC:
Q What did you hear this man here tell Capt. Picard 

that early morning at two thirty in the morning on Sep­
tember the 4th at the police station?

A You want me to start at the beginning?
Q Yes.
A He stated that at about nine, nine thirty that night 

he left his house and he met a subject by the name of 
Allen Breaux on Lillian Road, that they walked to the 
Country Club. While they were there at the Country 
Club Allen Breaux asked him if he wanted to go break 
into a place where he worked at and Alexander said 
okay.

So they walked back—he said they walked back to 
Allen Breaux’s house and got a crowbar out of Allen 
Breaux’s ’57 or ’58 greenish white Oldsmobile and that



161

Allen Breaux took the crowbar and placed it between his 
belt and that they walked to Girard Park.

When they got in the park they met a white boy and a 
white girl on the road by the lake. Allen Breaux asked 
[fol. 570] Claude Alexander if he wanted to get the boy 
and the girl, the white boy and the white girl. Claude 
Alexander said okay. They walked up to them and Allen 
Breaux asked him for his money and the boy gave him 
the money and he hit that boy. The girl said, “I f  I give 
you all more money will you all leave us alone” ? Allen 
Breaux jumped on the white girl, knocked her down, pulled 
her dress off, got on top of her and went with her.

Claude Alexander stated that Allen Breaux stayed on 
the white girl for at least forty to forty-five minutes and 
that as he was about to, Claude Alaxender was about to 
get on the white girl the cops came. Allen Breaux ran 
down the ditch and that he got into a concrete culvert 
and the policeman said come out and he did and that’s 
when he started running and caught him about two or 
three blocks away.

MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. PICCION E:

Q Mr. Broussard, have you got a copy there in your 
possession of Capt. Picard’s statement?

A Yes, sir.
Q May I see it?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. Now, how long have you had this par­

ticular copy?
A The night he gave the statement,
Q Since the night that who gave the statement?
A Claude Alexander gave the statement.
Q What date was that?
A On September the 4th, ’67.
Q And you’ve had that statement in your pocket all 

[fol. 571] that time?
A I had it at the house.



162

Q How many times have you looked at it?
A I looked at it when the trial was set the first time. 

I had it in my possession and also since Monday.
Q You read it over carefully?
A Yes, sir.
Q You studied it?
A I refreshed my memory on it.
Q Did you study it again after that?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you studied it again yesterday?
A I read it yesterday.
Q You knew you were going to be called on the stand 

so you studied it very carefully. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q So therefore your testimony today is your study and 

your memory of what is written by Capt. Picard on this 
piece of paper. Isn’t that right, sir?

A No, sir. I was present at the time the statement 
was given.

Q Well, you were present when Claude Alexander 
made certain statements. Is that right, sir?

A Correct.
Q Is this statement signed by Claude Alexander?
A No, sir.
Q But you have testified from this piece of paper, 

haven’t you, a copy of it?
A I refreshed my memory from that piece.
Q In other words, you kept your memory fresh by 

[fol. 572] looking at this time and time again in these 
last several months. Is that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q That’s clear, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, then, let’s see how good your memory is on 

what was said when the statement was taken. Did Claude 
Alexander several times state in effect “I did not rape 
anybody” ?

A No, sir, he didn’t state that.
Q He never said that once?
A Not when I was present, no, sir.
Q He didn’t say that repeatedly and consistently?



163

A No, sir, not that I remember.
Q More than once?
A If  he did I didn’t hear it.
Q In other words, if he said anything that’s not stated 

in this typewritten report of the statement, you don’t 
know about it. Is that right?

A No, sir.
Q And you don’t even remember it. Is that right?
A Not if anything else was said, no.
Q So that if Capt. Shirley Picard testified that he did 

consistently and repeatedly deny that he raped anybody, 
then you would say that Capt. Picard was mistaken and 
that you’re correct?

A I didn’t hear that at all.
Q You mean he could have said that several times and 

you didn’t hear it?
A I t ’s possible that I didn’t hear him.
Q You weren’t concerned as to whether or not what 

Capt. Picard typed down was a complete statement or an 
[fol. 573] incomplete statement?

A Capt. Picard is the one that took the statement 
down, sir, and I was just there present listening to it.

Q In other words, Capt Picard is responsible for the 
statement. Is that right?

A He was the investigating officer in command.
Q You don’t resume any responsibility toward the re­

sult of what was typed down.
A I was present.
Q You were just present.
A Right.
Q Mr. Broussard, were you in the police unit that took 

Miss Linda Dossey to the hospital?
A Yes, sir.
Q You helped get her up into the hospital?
A Yes, we brought her to the hospital.
Q You talked with her a little bit?
A No, sir, I didn’t talk to her.
Q You tried to help her?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who else was there when you took her to the hos­

pital?



164

A Auxiliaryman John Broussard and Carl Arleth.
Q The young man who was with her was also there?
A Correct.
Q And you were able to talk with him, right?
A Correct.
Q And he told you that his date’s name was Linda 

Dossey?
A Correct.
Q So you knew at that time that her name was Linda 

Dossey.
A Correct.

[fol. 574] Q When you got back to the station you told 
Capt. Picard what you had learned, that Linda Dossey 
and Carl Arleth were the names of the people involved?

A No, sir. You mean right when I got there?
Q I don’t mean right when you got there. I mean any 

time after you got there? Did you not tell Capt. Picard 
that?

A Yes, sir, I did.
Q You did tell him that, didn’t you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that was before he took the statement of Claude 

Alexander that you said you witnessed.
A No, sir.
Q No, sir, what?
A It  was after we took the statement.
Q You remember that?
A Yes, sir.
Q You remember that or have you had a discussion 

outside of this courtroom that it’s a necessary thing to 
establish that Linda came from him rather than from 
Capt. Picard?

A No, sir.
Q You haven’t  discussed that?
A No, sir, we haven’t.
Q You haven’t discussed that with Capt, Picard?
A No, sir.
Q Have you discussed it with anybody else?
A No, sir.
Q That’s the truth?
A That is.



165

Q Now think back very carefully. Did you report to 
Capt. Picard when you got back from Our Lady of Lourdes 
[fol. 575] Hospital of what you had found out? Did you 
report to him?

A After we come out, after we come out of the detec­
tive room, yes, sir.

Q Didn’t you report to him what you had found out 
before the interrogation proceeded?

A No, sir, I hadn’t.
Q In other words, you didn’t even assist the investi­

gating officer by telling him what you had learned at the 
hospital and on the scene. You let him go ahead with the 
interrogation without telling him what you had found out. 
Is that correct?

A Correct.
Q Is that the procedure you follow?
A When I arrived at the station, Capt. Picard was 

entering the detective division, detective room, and I fol­
lowed him inside.

Q And you didn’t talk with Capt. Picard?
A No, sir.
Q You just listened.
A Correct.
Q Was it not Capt. Picard that asked Claude Alex­

ander, “Weren’t you with Allen Breaux tonight” ? Didn’t 
he say, “Weren’t you with Allen Breaux in the woods to­
night”, or words to that effect?

A No, sir.
Q Was it not Capt. Picard who said to him, “Didn’t 

Linda offer you her money” ?
A No, sir, I didn’t hear that.
Q I t  could have happened that way?
A Pardon?
Q It  could have happened that way and you just don’t 

[fol. 576] remember it?
A I don’t recall it.
Q You don’t know.
A No, sir.
Q You don’t know who supplied the name Linda. Is 

that right?
A Supplied the name Linda?



166

Q Yes. Do you know whether you supplied it? You 
knew the name, didn’t you?

A Correct. I had it in my notebook.
Q You had it in your notebook.
A Correct.
Q Did you supply the name?
A No, sir, I didn’t  supply the name.
Q Well, did Capt. Picard supply it?
A No, sir.
Q Did anybody supply it?
A In the statement I understood the white boy—in the 

statement Claude Alexander gave, after the boy, the 
white boy was hit, he stated “Linda, do right and they’ll 
leave us alone”.

Q And you’re telling me then that this man here 
would have heard that one time in the park in an activ­
ity of this type and he remembered that name and fur­
nished that name in this interrogation?

MR. DeBLANC: We object to that as calling for an 
opinion as to what Mr. Arleth might have thought.

THE COURT: I ’ll sustain the objection.
Q (By Mr. Piccione) That’s your memory.
A. Correct
MR. PICCIONE: That’s all, Your Honor.

[fol. 577] MR. DeBLANC: That’s all.

(Witness excused)
MR. DeBLANC: Officer Navarre.

Thereupon,

ANTHONY NAVARRE
was recalled as a witness, and having been previously 
duly sworn, was examined and testified further as fol­
lows :

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY  MR. DeBLANC:

Q Will you state your name, please.
A Anthony Navarre.
Q And your occupation?



167

A City Police.
Q In the City of Lafayette?
A Correct.
Q Do you know Claude Alexander?
A I do.
Q Do you see him in the courtroom?
A I do.
Q Will you point him out to the jury.
A He’s sitting to the right of Mr. Piccione.
Q Did you have occasion to see him on September the 

4th at the City Police Station?
A I did.
Q About what time was that?
A I cannot determine on the time, but it was after 

one thirty in the morning.
Q Now, where was it you saw him there?
A In the detective office.
Q Who else was there?

[fol. 578] Q Capt. Picard and Officer Broussard.
Q Which Broussard?
A Sidney Broussard.
Q Did you have occasion to hear him make a state­

ment to Capt. Picard there at that time?
A As he began to make his statement I departed 

from the office. I was called out to go on an errand, on 
a mission.

Q You walked out before he made the statement?
A Correct.
Q Had he started to make the statement at that time?
A Negative. As I walked out— right after he refused 

to use the phone I walked out.
Q Right after he refused to sign?
A Right after he refused to use the phone, and I came 

back later on.
Q Well, did you see what Capt. Picard did during the 

time that you were there?
A Well, when I returned back, yes, I did.
Q What did he do?
A When I returned back Alexander was talking and 

Capt. Picard was writing. In other words, he was writ­
ing his statement.



168

Q How was he writing it?
A He had a sheet of paper and a pencil.
Q Did you see what he did afterwards with the sheet 

of paper?
A He later typed it and gave the statement to Alex­

ander to sign, asked him if he wanted to sign.
Q Did he sign it?
A He picked it up, picked up the pen and made a 

motion to sign and then he threw the pen on the desk and 
[fol. 579] said that he wouldn’t sign anything or he 
wouldn’t say anything more unless he was given his shoes.

Q Did you hear Capt. Picard tell him anything before 
he gave him the statement?

A I did.
Q What was it he told him?
A Capt. Picard advised him of his rights.
MR. DeBLANC: We tender the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY  MR. PICCION E:

Q Ju st this, Mr. Navarre. Do you recall Claude Alex­
ander asking to call his mother or for someone to call his 
mother?

A I don’t recall that.
Q Nobody saw fit to call his family at that time?
A I did not.
Q You all did call the family of the young boy and 

the young girl, didn’t you?
A I did not call.
Q Somebody called them.
A Correct.
Q They came there that night.
A I saw the girl’s father that night, but I don’t know 

who called him.
Q Did you see Claude Alexander’s mother?
A I did not.
Q Or any of his relatives?
A I did not.
Q To your knowledge, nobody called them, did they?



169

A To my knowledge no one called.
Q Did you hear Claude say, “Take me to jail, I ’m 

[fol. 580] pooped, I want to sleep, let me sleep”, before 
this statement was taken?

A Not before the statement was taken.
Q When was it?
A He made this statement as I and Officer Broussard 

—Auxiliaryman Broussard was taking him to jail. I t  was 
just as we departed from the station.

Q But you do remember him making that statement 
now. Is that right?

A Correct.
Q Who else was there when he made that statement? 

Was Sidney Broussard there?
A I honestly cannot recall; however, Auxiliaryman 

Broussard was there.
Q Was Capt. Shirley Picard there?
A I cannot recall that, sir.
Q You don’t remember if they were there and heard 

that statement?
A No, I cannot.
Q Do you remember Capt. Picard telling Claude Alex­

ander that he would not let him have some rest, sleep, 
until he told him what happened in the park? Now, 
think about that.

A He made no such statement to my knowledge.
Q You don’t remember that?
A He made no such statement in my presence.
MR. PICCIONE: That’s all, Your Honor.
MR. DeBLANC: That’s all.

*  *  *  *



170

Monday Mar 30 1970 

SU PREM E COURT OF LOUISIANA 

Nos. 50,012 and 50,013 

S t a t e  op L o u isia n a

v.

Cla u d e  A l e x a n d e r

Appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial District Court 
Criminal Division, Parish of Lafayette

H o n o ra ble  J e r o m e  E. D o m e n g e a u x , J udge 

McCALEB, Justice.

Claude Alexander and Lee Perry Pratt were originally 
indicted by the grand jury for the Parish of Lafayette 
for having committed the crime of aggravated rape on 
September 4, 1967. However, following a hearing and 
disposal of certain motions and pleas prior to trial, the 
judge granted a severance at the behest of Pratt and, 
thereafter, the District Attorney pursuant to Article 705 
C.Cr.P. filed separate indictments against each defendant. 
Alexander entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, 
the jury returned a verdict of guilty without capital 
punishment and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. 
He has appealed, relying upon the following bills of ex­
ceptions,1 for a reversal of his conviction. Some of these 
bills are common to those reserved by Lee Perry Pratt,

1 Appellant, who has employed new counsel since his conviction, 
reserved numerous other bills of exceptions numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 41 during his trial. 
These bills were perfected but, since they have not been mentioned 
either in oral argument or in brief in this Court, we presume they 
have been abandoned. Nevertheless, we have examined these bills 
and find they either refer to matters which are now moot or that 
they are without merit.



171

who has also appealed and whose conviction has this day
been affirmed. See State v. Pratt, ------  La. ------ , ------
So.2d ------ , No. 50,014 of our docket.

The record reveals the following facts : About midnight 
on September 3, 1967, a sixteen year old girl accompanied 
by her date, Carl Arleth, Jr ., an eighteen year old young 
man, after visiting various places of amusement in L af­
ayette, Louisiana, went to Girard Park where they de­
cided to stop for a few minutes. While walking in the 
vicinity of the park lake, they were accosted by two young 
Negroes, Claude Alexander and Lee Perry Pratt.

These two men informed the couple that they had a gun 
and grabbed Arleth, robbing him of $4.00. One of the 
men then assaulted the young girl who began screaming 
and fighting him off. At that time the other man struck 
Arleth, knocking him down and, as he lay on the ground, 
Alexander and his companion assaulted the girl, telling 
her that she had better do what they wanted or they 
would shoot both her and her boyfriend. The two men 
tried to tear off her clothes and succeeded in pulling off 
her girdle and underwear. Then Alexander had sexual 
intercourse with the girl while his companion helped to 
hold her down and quiet her. Following this, the com­
panion had sexual intercourse with the girl while Alex­
ander held her down. This procedure was again alter­
nated. At that point, the girl had only her bra and dress 
on, but Alexander pulled off the dress and grabbed her 
by the wrists, dragged her on her bare skin across the 
blacktopped street for a distance of 185 feet and dumped 
her into the coulee which was eleven feet deep. About this 
time she blacked out and Alexander then went down into 
the coulee and again began having sexual intercourse with 
her. They were lying in the coulee at the entrance to a 
large concrete culvert across the road and, while Alex­
ander was having sexual relations with her, the City 
Police came upon the scene. Two officers, Sidney Brous­
sard and Patrolman John Broussard, were in the patrol 
car when Sidney Broussard noticed someone running in 
the coulee. He stopped the car, got out and spotted his 
light within the coulee where he saw Alexander lying in 
a prone position on top of the girl. Upon being discovered,



172

Alexander got up, zipped the fly of his trousers and 
entered the North end of the culvert right next to where 
he had been lying. The other officer then ran to the other 
end of the culvert. At this time Officer Sidney Broussard 
loudly called on Alexander to come up. Upon the latter’s 
failure to do so, the officer fired a shot on the side of the 
culvert into the ground. Then Alexander came out on the 
North end of the culvert and was placed under arrest by 
the officers who had him lie on the ground face down. At 
this time the girl was screaming and began climbing the 
banks of the coulee, and Sidney Broussard went to her 
assistance. When he did so, Alexander got up and fled. 
The officers followed him in close pursuit and finally ap­
prehended him.

The first bill presented by defense counsel for our con­
sideration is designated in the record as Bill of Exceptions 
No. 10 and was taken to the overruling of Alexander’s 
motion to quash the indictment. This bill is similar to 
Bill of Exceptions No. 2 in State v. Pratt, supra, and, 
for the reasons hereinafter stated and those given in the 
Pratt case, we find the complaint to be without merit.

The grounds advanced for quashing the indictment a re : 
((* *• *•

“ (1) That citizens who are females were system­
atically excluded from the Grand Ju ry  list and venire 
and from the Grand Ju ry  as empaneled.

“ (2) That citizens of the Negro race were in­
cluded in the Grand Ju ry  list, and Grand Jury ven­
ire, in such small numbers as to constitute only a 
token, having no relationship to the number of citi­
zens of the Negro race as compared to the number 
of citizens of the Caucasian race in the general popu­
lation in the Parish of Lafayette and in the F if­
teenth Judicial District of the State of Louisiana.

“ (3) That the indictment found by the Grand Jury 
is defective for failing to inform the accused, Claude 
Alexander, of the facts and circumstances necessary 
to constitute the alleged crime of aggravated rape.

“ (4) That the indictment * * * is invalid and il­
legal and should be quashed because said indictment



173

was returned by a Grand Ju ry  empaneled from a 
Grand Ju ry  venire made up contrary to the provi­
sions of Amendment V, Amendment VI, Amendment 
X IV  and Amendment XV  of the Constitution of the 
United States of America.”

It is obvious, from a mere reading of the grounds above 
set forth, that the objection stated in paragraphs one and 
three are clearly without substance. I t  is well settled that 
the fact that women do not appear on a general venire list 
for jury duty furnishes no cause for quashing an indict­
ment in view of Article 402 of the Code of Criminal Pro­
cedure. See also State v. Comeaux, 252 La. 481, 211 
So.2d 620; Hoyt v. State of Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 82 
S.Ct. 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 118 (1961) ; and State v. Lee Perry 
Pratt, supra, this day decided. And the claim in para­
graph three that the indictment is defective in that it fails 
to inform defendant of the nature and cause of the accu­
sation against him is likewise not well founded. The ac­
cused is charged under the short form provided in Article 
564 C.Cr.P., and this form has many times been held suf­
ficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. State v. 
Barksdale, 247 La. 198, 170 So.2d 374, and cases there 
cited.

The main contention under the motion to quash is that 
Negroes were included in the grand jury list and general 
venire in such small numbers as to constitute only token 
representation and, thus, warrants the conclusion that 
they were systematically excluded by design because of 
their race from grand jury service.

The question of purposeful inclusion or exclusion of 
members of a race from jury service is manifestly one of 
fact, and the burden rested with defendant to establish 
his claim. See State v. Mack, 243 La. 369, 144 So.2d 363, 
and cases there cited. In assuming this burden, defendant 
called to the stand the registrar of voters and the clerk 
of court, who is also a member of the jury commission.

The testimony of these witnesses, particularly that of 
the clerk of court, as we have found in State v. Pratt, this 
day decided, does not support counsel’s contention for, 
after reviewing the evidence in the case, we declare:



174

‘’The fact that the Grand Ju ry  included no mem­
bers of the Negro race is, in our opinion, a matter 
of coincidence and not purposeful exclusion. As 
stated supra, the composition of the general venire 
was indiscriminate; the names of the Grand Jury 
venire were drawn from the general venire. It fol­
lows that race was not a factor in selection. See 
Article 411, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure.”

In view of the finding in the Pratt case, it would be 
superfluous to discuss in detail the evidence upon which 
our conclusion rests. Suffice it to say that the evidence 
shows that the general venire list of 400 names contained 
the names of 25 Negroes, a circumstance which lends 
support to the testimony of the clerk of court that the 
venire list was chosen from the card index without ref­
erence to race. Furthermore, the fact that the 20 names 
drawn by lot from the general venire to comprise the 
grand jury venire for the court term, during which de­
fendant was indicted, contained the name of only one 
Negro cannot be regarded as an indication that Negroes 
were systematically excluded from grand jury service in 
the absence of a showing that over the years a pattern 
has been established whereby only a token number of 
Negroes has been selected to serve on grand juries in 
Lafayette Parish. For, without some evidence of this 
sort, there is no sound basis for rejecting the testimony 
of the clerk of court (who, incidentally, was the only 
member of the jury commission consisting of five persons 
called by defendant to testify), that the general venire 
of 400 names was selected without consideration of race, 
color or creed.

Bills of Exceptions Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are 
interrelated and treated as one in the briefs of defendant 
and the State. Bills Nos. 18, 19 and 20 were taken when 
the court ruled, over defense counsel’s objection, that the 
State could exhibit to Officer Sidney Joseph Broussard, 
J r . certain photographs of the victim and her escort, Carl 
Arleth, showing cuts, scratches and abrasions on their 
bodies on the day after the rape. Also, the officer was per­
mitted to identify a photograph of the defendant. And



175

Bills 21, 22 and 23 were reserved when the judge per­
mitted these photographs to be shown Auxiliary Patrol­
man John Broussard for his identification of the defend­
ant, the victim and her escort.

Defense counsel contends that these photographs were 
used by these witnesses in their testimony before the jury 
without a proper foundation being first laid for their 
admissibility since there was nothing to indicate at the 
time the Broussards testified as to when, where or by 
whom the photographs were made or their materiality 
and relevance to the State’s case.

We find no merit in the bills. While it is true that the 
foundation for the admission of the photographs had not 
been laid at the time the objections were made and the 
identification of the persons therein pictured were given 
by the officers, the fact remains that the State was not 
attempting to offer the photographs in evidence at the 
time the police witnesses identified the persons pictured 
therein. Later on during the trial, after the proper foun­
dation had been laid, the photographs were admitted in 
evidence without objection.

Article 773 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides 
that neither the State nor the defendant can be controlled 
by the court as to the order in which evidence shall be 
adduced. However, when evidence requires a foundation 
for its admission, the foundation must be laid before the 
evidence may be received. Since the State was not at­
tempting to offer the photographs in evidence, the objec­
tion that the foundation for their admission must first be 
laid was premature and out of context with the an­
nounced purpose of their use. But, if  the use of the 
photographs at that time was objectionable, we would 
still find no substance in counsel’s contention inasmuch as 
the photographs were properly admitted at a later time 
when the foundation was laid for their reception in evi­
dence.

Bill of Exceptions No. 24 was taken when the court 
overruled an objection by defense counsel to a statement 
made by Carl Arleth, the girl’s escort who, in testifying 
for the State, declared that when the police arrived he 
told them “* * * that Linda had been raped * * De-



176

fense counsel conceives that this was opinion testimony 
and, therefore, inadmissible.

The objection was properly overruled. Arleth was not 
testifying to an opinion; he was stating a fact, as he had 
witnessed the rape.

Bill of Exceptions No. 25 was reserved to the trial 
judge’s ruling permitting the in-court identification of 
the accused by the State witness, Carl Arleth, Jr ., who 
was present at the time of the commission of the crime. 
The objection was based on the contention that the proper 
foundation for the identification had not been laid.

In this Court, however, defendant’s new counsel pre­
sents an entirely different theory proclaiming that, in 
view of the fact the accused was a Negro being tried by 
an all white jury, “* * * such an obvious identification 
was immaterial and irrelevant * * * and could have no 
other effect than to convey to the jury the witnesses’ be­
lief that the defendant because he was a Negro was the 
guilty party * *

There is no merit in the bill. Arleth was an eyewitness 
to the crime, and his testimony shows that he was quali­
fied to make an in-court identification. See State v. 
Singleton, 253 La. 18, 215 So.2d 838, a case substantially 
similar to this one, and the authorities there cited.

Bill of Exceptions No. 26 was reserved to the court’s 
refusal to admonish the jury to disregard the pronuncia­
tion of the word “Negroes” by the Assistant District At­
torney, Mrs. Frances Gilfoil. It appears from the record 
that Mrs. Gilfoil pronounced the word Negroes with less 
emphasis on the letter “o” than commonly used so that 
the word as she pronounced it sounded somewhat like 
“nigras.” The judge thought the objection to the pro­
nunciation by Mrs. Gilfoil was frivolous. But counsel in 
argument here stresses that the pronunciation of the dis­
trict attorney somehow prejudices defendant before an 
all white jury.

We agree with the trial judge. Indeed, it is difficult to 
discern that defendant suffered any prejudice as the re­
sult of the assistant district attorney’s pronunciation of 
the word Negroes. On the contrary, it appears to us that, 
in view of the heinous crime committed by defendant,



177

which was proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the satis­
faction of the jury, the members of that body displayed 
leniency and compassion by returning a qualified verdict 
of guilty in the case.

Albeit Bills of Exceptions Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 
33, 34, 35 and 36 have been argued and submitted by 
both the State and defense counsel as inseparable, in that 
they refer to the admission in evidence on rebuttal by the 
State of a certain inculpatory or exculpatory statement 
given by defendant, we think that discussion of these bills 
would be more readily understood if they were partially, 
segregated.

It appears from the record that defendant took the 
witness stand in his own behalf and testified that he had 
gone to the park on the night of the crime with the in­
tention of burglarizing the Yarc Club and had obtained 
a tire tool from the trunk of his car to assist him in doing 
so; that, while in the park, he heard a noise and as he 
crossed the bridge he heard a moan; that he walked down 
into the culvert and found the prosecutrix lying there; 
and that, soon afterwards, the police officers arrived and 
arrested him. At this stage of defendant’s testimony, the 
State informed the court that it desired to introduce an 
oral inculpatory statement made by the defendant for the 
purpose of rebutting his evidence.

Accordingly, the jury was then withdrawn from the 
courtroom and, thereafter, the State produced Officers 
Shirley Picard, Sidney Broussard and Anthony Navarre 
to lay the foundation for the admission in evidence of an 
oral statement of an inculpatory or exculpatory nature 
which tended to contradict the testimony given by de­
fendant while on the witness stand. During the examina­
tion of these witnesses out of the presence of the jury, de­
fense counsel reserved Bills of Exceptions Nos. 27, 28 
and 29, which were taken when the judge overruled ob­
jections to questions propounded by the district attorney 
to Picard on the ground that they wTere leading ques­
tions. The first question asked was whether Picard or 
anyone else in his presence did anything to menace or 
intimidate the defendant or threaten him in any manner 
so as to cause him to give the statement sought to be intro-



178

duced in evidence. The court overruled the objection that 
the question was leading and similar objections to two 
other questions of the same nature. Whereupon, defense 
counsel reserved Bills 27, 28 and 29.

We find no substance in the bills. When the State at­
tempts to lay the foundation for the admission of a con­
fession, it is required to show that the statement given 
by the accused is free and voluntary in all respects. 
Hence, it must perforce propound to the State witnesses 
questions to establish this as a fact. While the questions 
propounded may be regarded as leading in a sense, their 
allowance is within the sound discretion of the judge, and 
we cannot think of any instance where bills of this sort 
furnish a valid basis for the reversal of a conviction.

Bill of Exceptions No. 30 was taken to the overruling 
by the judge of defense counsel’s objection to the reception 
of defendant’s oral statement in evidence on the ground 
that the offer of the statement came too late after the 
State had rested its case in chief.

We find no merit in the bill. Since the State had noti­
fied the defendant it had an inculpatory statement and 
intended to use it, it  had the right to offer it at any stage 
of the trial upon laying the foundation for its admission.

Bills 31, 32 and 33 were taken to the overruling of 
objections to questions propounded to Officer Broussard 
on the ground that they were leading. In this respect, as 
we have indicated, the bills are on a parity with Bills 
27, 28 and 29 hereinabove discussed. One of these bills 
shows that, when Officer Broussard was asked whether 
he or anyone else placed defendant in fear or under dur­
ess, the objection was made to his testimony on the ground 
that it would contain conclusions and, when the officer 
was asked did anyone else threaten defendant in any way 
to make him give a statement, the same objection was 
made.

These bills, we think, are obviously without merit.
The same ruling applies to Bills of Exceptions Nos. 

34 and 35, which were taken to the overruling of objec­
tions to similar questions propounded to Officer Navarre 
on the ground that they were leading.



179

Bill No. 36 was taken when the judge ruled that the 
State had proven to his satisfaction that all the warnings 
required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct, 
1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, were given the defendant, and that 
the oral inculpatory statement made by him was free and 
voluntary. The judge states in part in his per curiam:

“The Court wishes also to state that it was com­
pletely satisfied with the testimony of the three offi­
cers, Picard, Broussard and Navarre, in connection 
with the circumstances surrounding the taking of the 
statement of the defendant. The Court was satisfied 
that these officers testified truthfully.”

After reading the testimony, we find no error in the 
judge’s rulings and, hence, this bill is not well founded.

When defendant was on the stand under cross-exami­
nation, he was asked, with respect to his statement to the 
police, whether he saw the officer type anything on the 
typewriter. His answer was, “Yes.” At this point de­
fense counsel objected, stating:

“* * * I would like to make it clear that it is 
clear that I have before the court objected to what 
we are now getting into to the questioning under the 
condition and the statements that we’re now getting 
into on constitutional grounds, and we’re reserved 
our bill of exceptions on any of this as being legally 
admissible in this trial.”

When the judge overruled the objection, counsel reserved 
Bill No. 37.

We find it difficult to comprehend the meaning of coun­
sel’s objection. However, the court evidently understood 
it, for it was stated in the per curiam that the bill was 
merely a reiteration of defendant’s previous objection to 
the court’s allowance of evidence on defendant’s inculpa­
tory statement. We perceive no error in the ruling.

After the judge found the confession admissible, the 
jury was returned to the courtroom and defendant re­
sumed his testimony on the stand under cross-examina­
tion. At this time he was asked concerning the giving of 
the statement and, when he denied that he had voluntar-



180

ily made a statement, the State announced its intention 
to impeach his testimony. Thereafter, Officers Picard and 
Broussard were placed on the stand, and they testified 
that defendant did make the oral statement in question. 
Defense counsel objected to Officer Picard’s testimony 
concerning the statement “* * * for the constitutional rea­
sons I have heretofore urged.” When the objection was 
overruled, Bill No. 38 was reserved. Later on, during the 
cross-examination of Officer Picard, defense counsel ob­
jected to the officer’s testimony anent the oral statement 
of defendant on the ground that the entire statement had 
not been related by the witness, and, when the objection 
was overruled, Bill No. 39 was reserved.

In his per curiam to these bills, the judge remarks that 
they are simply a reiteration of counsel’s objection to de­
fendant’s inculpatory statement and Officer Picard’s testi­
mony in connection therewith. After an examination of 
the testimony pertaining to these bills, we find no error 
in the ruling of the trial judge.

Bill of Exceptions No. 40 is on the same footing as 
Bills 38 and 39. It  was taken while Officer Broussard was 
on the stand, and counsel objected to the officer’s state­
ment concerning the giving of the oral inculpatory state­
ment. The bill is without merit.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence 
are affirmed.



181

SU PREM E COURT OF THE STA TE OF LOUISIANA 

Clerk’s Office, New Orleans, May 4, 1970

Dear S ir:

Rehearing was this day refused in the case entitled 
State v. Alexander et al Nos. 50,012, 50,013.

Cordially yours,

H arold  A. M o is e , J r ., C lerk.

SU PREM E COURT OF THE UNITED STA TES 

No. 5944, October Term, 1970 

Cla u d e  A l e x a n d e r , p e t it io n e r

v.

L o u isia n a

On petition for W rit of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 
of the State of Louisiana.

On consideration of the motion for leave to proceed 
herein in forma pauperis and of the petition for writ of 
certiorari, it is ordered by this Court that the motion to 
proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same is hereby, 
granted; and that the petition for writ of certiorari be, 
and the same is hereby, granted.

March 1, 1971
U.  S .  GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE;  1 9 7 ! 4 2 2 0 8 6  5 8 0



K&C