New Orleans District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro stands behind judicial expense fund investigation [New Orleans CityBusiness (LA)]

District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has come under fire for an August letter he sent to Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell requesting that he investigate the 12 judges at Orleans Parish Criminal District Court for suspected criminal conduct.

The judges are accused of using money raised from fines levied against people convicted of felonies and misdemeanors to pay for their life insurance and health benefits. State law prohibits judges from supplementing their annual salaries.

In his letter to Caldwell, Cannizzaro said he needed to recuse himself from the investigation because he engaged in the same practice when he served on the criminal court bench from 1986 to 2002.

The statute of limitations prevents Cannizzaro from being prosecuted, but some question whether the district attorney's admission makes him unfit to serve as the city's top prosecutor.

Cannizzaro said he did not voluntarily ask Caldwell to criminally prosecute the judiciary. Following media reports investigating the Judicial Expense Fund, several agencies, including the Metropolitan Crime Commission, requested the district attorney look into the matter.

Because Cannizzaro also engaged in the practices in question, an outside ethics counsel recommended that he recuse himself and refer the matter to the attorney general, he said.

The Caldwell letter that has fueled much of the criticism was supposed to be confidential to avoid unnecessarily smearing someone's reputation in the event that the conduct is not criminal, Cannizzaro said.

Caldwell chose to make it public.

"While some have criticized me for using strong language in the letter, I am not going to apologize for that," Cannizzaro said. "When I am sending an investigation to another office, I am not going to hold back information out of fear that someone will get his/ her feelings hurt."

Cannizzaro said he was put in a difficult position. He could not ignore requests that he investigate potential criminal activity, even if he engaged in the same practice.

If he pursued the matter himself and determined there was no wrongdoing, people would accuse him of bias, he said. If he filed charges, those same people would accuse him of using his office to pursue political enemies.

"While some people want to criticize my actions, I have not heard a single person offer an alternative course of action that would have been better," Cannizzaro said. "People should take from this that no one, not the police, not my office and not the judges of the criminal district court, are above the law."

Cannizzaro's job may not be at risk but his reputation has taken a serious hit, said Rafael Goyenche, president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission.

"I've seen dozen of recusal letters. Most are one or two sentences. Leon's was five pages and it had venom dripping from every line," he said.

One of Cannizzarro's biggest achievements has been improving the working relationship between the police department and the district attorney's office, a strategy he has seemingly ignored when it comes to the judiciary, Goyeneche said.

"He has taken his office and its relationship with the courts to the most acrimonious level I've seen in the past 30 years. I don't understand what the end game is. It's really irrational."

If the legislative auditors determine public funds were improperly used, even if there if no criminal intent, the attorney general could attempt to recover the money from the judges, Goyeneche said.

"Even if the law doesn't apply to (Cannizzaro) because of the statute of limitations and he doesn't have to pay the money back, morally and ethically he should probably set an example and pay it back."

Loyola University College of Law professor Dane Ciolino said the misuse of the Judicial Expense Fund, a practice that went on for decades, doesn't rise to the level of high crimes.

"This very well may have been improper, but it is not criminal conduct or egregious misconduct," Ciolino said.

For judges to be found guilty of ethical violations, it has to be willful misconduct, he explained. They had to be aware that what they were doing was illegal and proceeded to do it anyway.

"It's not like some of these other situations where judges have stolen or corrupted justice or fixed a case or committed conspiracy," Ciolino said. "I think they can claim that upon further reflection, looking carefully at the statutes and legislative history, that it looks like maybe they shouldn't have given themselves these insurance benefits."