You are on page 1of 2

This is a petition to have Judge Marullo recused from the court proceedings of Rogers Lacaze.

Judge Marullo is bias towards this case, and has conflicting interests with the case of Rogers Lacaze. Below are reasons why the supporters, family members and friends of Rogers feel Judge Marullo should be removed from further proceedings regarding Rogers and the case of Rogers Lacaze. Rogers is a death row inmate at the Louisiana state prison sentenced by Judge Marullo in 1995 after being convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder in which he maintains his innocence. A request of recusal was denied by Judge Marullo when asked to recuse himself. Judge Marullo has made detrimental decisions to the case of Rogers Lacaze. Judge Marullo denied a change of venue for the trial of Rogers knowing it was a high profile case. At least 18 news paper articles were printed in news papers before the trial and jury members were subjected to the media slant about Rogers Lacaze before he was convicted, which proved to be detrimental to his case. News reports are uncounted from before the trial. Judge Marullo was briefly investigated for the release of a gun (9 mm.) that was questionable to be the murder weapon in this case when he denied signing a court order to release the gun from evidence/property to officer Antoinette Frank. This investigation was not until after the trial of Rogers Lacaze, but gives valid reasons for a recusal in further court proceedings involving Rogers Lacaze and his case. Judge Marullo was made aware that one female jury member made a phone call to a member of her family during the trial and told her family member the jury was going to find Rogers Lacaze guilty. This was reported by a family member of the jury member who made the call but Judge Marullo prohibited the defense from questioning the jury and the courts about this, the order made in Judge Marullo's docket proves he was made aware of this conversation between the jury member and the person she called. His decision not to handle this matter appropriately was detrimental to the case of Rogers Lacaze. Judge Marullo has signed pre mature death warrants in the case involving the Kim Ahn murders which Rogers Lacaze was convicted of, this is unconstitutional and shows the judge is bias in the case. Judge Marullo signed a death warrant for Rogers Lacaze upon sentencing him to death in September of 1995, the death warrant was signed for March of 1996. Rogers is the only death row inmate to be given a death date upon sentencing. Judge Marullo has stated more then once the case was "well litigated" and the law requires a capitol case to be handled expeditiously, but ignores the appeal process before signing death warrants. It is a personal opinion of Judge Marullo that the case was "well litigated" when the fact is Rogers Lacaze was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death within 5 months of the triple murders. The investigation was well limited and quickly prosecuted because of media hype. Judge Marullo does not wish to have the constitutional guarantee of an appeal that could reverse the conviction of wrongfully convicted defendants be a part of his court proceedings. This is well

documented in the case of Rogers Lacaze. Rogers Lacaze has filed judicial and ethical misconduct charges against Judge Marullo and his court reporter Andree Sullivan for the destruction of his court record. Rogers has days of missing transcripts from his record which were vital to his appeal to the supreme court about his trial. The arrest of Rogers defense attorney Willie Turk during his trial is not transcribed in his record but the arrest during trial is valid reasons for Rogers to have concern for further court proceedings that may mention this issue upon further appeals. Judge Marullo and his court reporter Andree Sullivan are in violation of a supreme court order to turn over audio tapes from Rogers trial to his defense. A law clerk at Yale named Jorge Baron assisted Rogers defense attorney Clide Smith to retrieve the court ordered tapes but said the scheduling difficulties and inattentive manner to abide by the court order by Judge Marullo's court reporter made it impossible to retrieve the court ordered evidence. The court order has not yet been abided by. Judge Marullo allowed the prosecution to tell the jury under the "law of principals" that Rogers must be found guilty as the state told the jury Rogers was in commission of a robbery when the 3 victims in this case lost their lives. Rogers was not, tried, convicted, or sentenced on any charges of robbery, only the 3 counts of first degree murder. There was no robbery charge given to the jury to consider convicting on. Judge Marullo allowing this was also detrimental to the case of Rogers Lacaze. Judge Marullo failed to take appropriate action to issue warrants for subpoenaed witnesses that did not show up to testify at the trial on behalf of Rogers Lacaze, one witness was a nurse from the jail who treated Rogers for the beating by the Orleans Parish officers that beat him in the interrogation room as his mother sat down the hallway waiting to hear the out come of the questioning of her son. This witness was called but had not appeared and the court was told she was in route, but Judge Marullo did not ask she be called again under the subpoena in the trial for 3 murdered victims. The neglect to bring her before the courts by Judge Marullo was detrimental to the case of Rogers Lacaze. Rogers Lacaze has new evidence that was not available at his trial because of the expeditious manner in which the case was prosecuted in, this is a petition to have Judge Marullo recused from the case of Rogers Lacaze so no further detrimental harm may result in future proceedings of Rogers post conviction appeals process. The forcible recusal is necessary to ensure Rogers Lacaze a full and impartial appeal. Judge Marullo has promised to set another execution date on Monday June 23, 2008 for Rogers Lacaze instead of scheduling his post conviction appeal. This obviously shows again to be detrimental to Rogers case, and Judge Marullo's bias involving the case.