02 February 2024 Final

debts owed up to $5,000.00.
The guide discusses other
possible civil jurisdictional issues,
as well.
Presiding Officers
When we think about courts,
we usually envision a judge
– someone admitted to the
practice of law in Louisiana –
before whom there are attorneys
presenting evidence in
favor of the requested relief
(the prosecutor or plaintiff’s
attorney) and in opposition
to the requested relief (the
defense attorney). Mayor’s
courts present a unique dynamic
that differs from typical
courts, one that both
makes them fiscally efficient
and uniquely challenging.
Mayor’s courts are designed
such that the mayor - who
need not be, and often is not,
an attorney – may preside
over court actions, effectively
acting as the judge. The mayor
may also simultaneously
function as the prosecutor for
criminal and traffic matters.
This dual capacity requires
a great deal of discipline on
the mayor’s part, such that
they must very carefully separate
those roles. They gather
and present evidence in their
prosecutorial role, which also
grants them the prosecutorial
authority to reduce or
dismiss charges. Once all evidence
has been presented,
both in favor of, and in opposition
to, the requested relief,
the mayor then puts on their
judge’s hat and weighs the
evidence to decide whether
it is sufficient to support the
charge. As presiding officer,
the mayor has authority to
decide the admissibility and
credibility of evidence and to
issue all appropriate orders
and decisions.
It is this unique dual capacity
of the mayor that has become
the subject of much
scrutiny and discussion, as
discussed in more depth below.
It is important to note,
however, that Title 33 provides,
upon request by the
mayor, that the governing
body shall appoint a magistrate
to preside over the
court and/or a prosecutor to
present evidence before the
court. This may not be fiscally
feasible for all municipalities,
but it is an important consideration
that goes a long way
toward addressing the perceived
conflicts that are discussed
herein.
Unfair Criticism
Those critical of mayor’s
courts tend to simplify the
subject, which inherently
flaws many of their opinions.
Here, we try to shed light on
how the most common attacks
err in their reasoning.
There is a misconception that
the presiding role of the mayor
is problematic because the
mayor controls the municipal
budget. This presumption
ignores a basic fact of municipal
government: the governing
body controls the adoption
and amendment of the
annual operating budget. Indeed,
it is one of the primary
duties of the legislative body
to preserve and maintain the
public fisc.
A corollary of that belief is
that when the mayor presides,
they do so with disreputable
motives; that they will
go out of their way to find
defendants financially liable
for the purpose of increasing
municipal revenue. Not only
is this insulting to conscientious
presiding mayors, but
it also discounts some key
facts. The reality is that presiding
mayors – who are often
more familiar with those
who appear before them
than an appointed magistrate
would be – frequently
utilize options beyond imposing
monetary fines, including
reduction of charges,
pretrial diversion, suspension
of sentence/probation, driver
improvement programs,
and community service litter
abatement work programs.
The focus of mayor’s courts
is on improving public health
and safety, as well as maintaining
community aesthetics.
Simply put, like other
courts, the decisions of these
courts are rooted in compliance
and outcomes. Those
who imply malice have likely
not observed the reality of
these courts’ operations.
A person convicted in mayor’s
court has the right to a
trial de novo upon appeal in
the district court in which
the mayor’s court is located.
This applies both to findings
of guilt following trial
and to convictions based on
guilty/nolo contendere pleas
(though appeals from guilty
pleas are generally only
granted to ensure that defendants
receive procedural
safeguards for their constitutional
rights). A trial de novo
amounts to a re-trial of the
case based on the testimony
and evidence available. So,
there is an oversight mechanism
built into the mayor’s
court framework. Furthermore,
presiding mayors are
subject to the codes, canons,
and rules of the Louisiana
Judicial Commission and
Supreme Court supervision,
and may be disciplined for
unlawful behavior.
LMR | FEBRUARY 2024 Page 15