Political Illusions of the Cajun Mafia

At the time of the murder, Sandifer was the prosecutor in Davis’ division, to which Karey was allotted. Sandifer has since left the Calcasieu District
Attorney’s Office for the state Attorney General’s Office. Holland is a contract prosecutor who works at district attorney’s offices around the state.
Both said that all they did was operate inside the law when bringing the information to the grand jury to have it “fairly” decided.
“All we agreed to was to subpoena the witnesses (the defense) provided and let the grand jury decide,” Sandifer said. At the time of the first
indictment, the investigation was still open and there were “a lot of people law enforcement had not talked to.”
Clemons emailed a list of witnesses and information about their testimony to Sandifer, according to testimony.
“Before you gave us this list, I had no idea who these people were,” Sandifer said under questioning from Clemons.
Clemons said that he and Johnson held a phone conference with DeRosier, Holland and Sandifer on Oct. 30, 2013. He said he also had a
separate phone call with DeRosier.
DeRosier, like Holland, said he did not recall the conference call, but did remember speaking with Clemons about the case. Clemons called him
on his cell phone one night while he was cooking dinner, he said. During that phone call, it was Clemons who asked if he could present witnesses
to the grand jury, DeRosier said.
“You said you had concerns because you had been a prosecutor and knew a prosecutor could sway a grand jury,” DeRosier told Clemons. “I said
something to the effect, ‘Present your witnesses and the grand jury is going to do what it is going to do.’ ”
DeRosier said he told Clemons that the case would be presented “fairly” to the grand jury, but that didn’t amount to an agreement.
“What is the difference between an agreement and a binding agreement,” Clemons asked the district attorney.
“None,” DeRosier replied.
Clemons said more than once that he had no problem with the way Holland had handled the case, but that his issues were with others.
After the grand jury’s decision, Holland shook Clemons’ hand and told him, ‘you made the right decision,’ Clemons said.
Holland told Clemons that the case could go either way, but that it was a good idea to call the defense’s witnesses if the jurors were going to
decide on manslaughter, Holland testified.
“I thought there was potential that could happen if you presented witnesses,” Holland said.
Holland was adamant that Karey’s wife, Janet Karey, testify — Clemons claimed that she waived spousal privilege to do so, while Holland said
the grand jury could have subpoenaed her without assistance from the defense.
Clemons asked Holland about a of couple statements he had made.
First, Clemons asked Holland whether he had said that he could get more justice done over a few beers than in a courtroom. Holland said that he
had said that, then said, after a brief pause, “I would also note that we never had a few beers.”
Clemons then asked Holland whether he had said that the Karey murder case was a rare situation in which the accused had more integrity than
the victim. Holland said he did not recall saying exactly that, but had said something similar.
Under questioning from Clemons, Holland said a plea deal had once been extended to Karey, although there was no documented evidence
entered. Holland said it was usually his practice to make such offers in writing. Holland, who also expressed surprise that Karey had not
immediately pleaded guilty when he was first indicted on a manslaughter charge, said Karey was offered to plead guilty to manslaughter and
sentencing would be left to the discretion of Davis, although an added charge of firearm enhancement was also going to be added.
Sandifer said he did not remember a plea deal being offered. He filed the firearm enhancement on Nov. 22, 2013, at DeRosier’s direction, he
said.
No offer has been made to Karey, Clemons testified.
The defense also wanted to call other witnesses, but Davis did not allow them to be called, saying that only the prosecutors and defense
attorneys would have had direct knowledge of whether an agreement had been made.
Comments made about this article - 6 Total
Posted By: just saying On: 1/13/2015
Title: Justice?
According to these posts, most folks seem to think that it's justifiable to go around killing anyone we want dead, then accuse them of , in this case, sexual
abuse. From what i've read/heard about this case, there seems to be reasonable doubt as to the allegations of "rape". According to current Louisiana law, LA
Revised Statue RS 14:30.1 Second Degree Murder:
Second degree murder:
A. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:
(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm;
B. Whoever commits the crime of second degree murder shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence.
Verbatim from OUR current criminal code. No special circumstance for " if you THINK the intended victim did something you don't like or agree with. This case
has , unfortunately, like so many criminal cases, been cleverly morphed into s parody of what is supposed to be about one man intentionally carrying a loaded
firearm into a chuch with the
" specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm " to Ronald Harris. Period. Entirely too often, instead of evidence or what actually happened, these cases
become about the attorneys or the process.
This current bickering seems to be about what lawyer said or did or disn't say or do. What about the law, the witnesses, or evidence? No matter what the
verdict of the " deal, agreement ", or vision clouding banter of this costly, time-consuming side-bar results in, Ronald Harris, his family, and church have
suffered a loss. No matter what you believe, untill we change the laws in place, this Woodrow Karey has committed Second Degree Murder. Call it whatever
you wish, rationalize or justify it by whatever theory fits your mindset. If Karey had walked in on his wife, daughter, or mother being assaulted, I would agree
200% with shooting the assailant dead on the spot. And would be legally justified in doing so. But that is a far cry from what happened here. But apparently that
doesn' really matter.
Second degree murder:
A. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:
(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm;
B. Whoever commits the crime of second degree murder shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence.
Verbatim from OUR current criminal code. No special circumstance for " if you THINK the intended victim did something you don't like or agree with. This case
has , unfortunately, like so many criminal cases, been cleverly morphed into s parody of what is supposed to be about one man intentionally carrying a loaded
firearm into a chuch with the
" specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm " to Ronald Harris. Period. Entirely too often, instead of evidence or what actually happened, these cases
become about the attorneys or the process.
This current bickering seems to be about what lawyer said or did or disn't say or do. What about the law, the witnesses, or evidence? No matter what the
verdict of the " deal, agreement ", or vision clouding banter of this costly, time-consuming side-bar results in, Ronald Harris, his family, and church have
suffered a loss. No matter what you believe, untill we change the laws in place, this Woodrow Karey has committed Second Degree Murder. Call it whatever
you wish, rationalize or justify it by whatever theory fits your mindset. If Karey had walked in on his wife, daughter, or mother being assaulted, I would agree
200% with shooting the assailant dead on the spot. And would be legally justified in doing so. But that is a far cry from what happened here. But apparently that
doesn' really matter.
" /> Report Abuse
Posted By: Molly Hamish On: 1/12/2015
Title: Mitigating Circumstances
The rape allegation is pertinent to the decision on whether to charge manslaughter or murder because it is a mitigating factor. If Karey did not believe Harris
had raped his wife, would he have done what he did? Also, Karey's documented actions after the shooting indicate he was not trying to commit a crime and
escape justice. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to serve jail time. Rapist or not, a man died. But I don't think it qualifies as second-degree murder.
I would personally like to know more of what happened with the rape allegations. The infamous text, as I read it, did not sound like a man threatening a woman
to keep her silent. It sounded like a man blowing off an unwanted lover. I wonder if it might have been a false allegation by the wife when her husband found