Louisiana Supreme Court recalls Liz Murrill’s arrest warrant in late-night emergency ruling

The Louisiana Supreme Court in an emergency order late Friday night agreed to recall an arrest warrant for Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, after issuing a ruling earlier in the day to stay her indictment from an Orleans Parish grand jury.

The grand jury indicted Murrill on Thursday, charging her with 16 felony counts of malfeasance in office and intimidation. Orleans Criminal District Court Judge Leon Roche issued an alias capias arrest warrant and set Murrill’s bond at $400,000.

The attorney general quickly asked the state Supreme Court to intervene, who responded with an order Friday morning that stayed the indictment.

But by late Friday, Murrill went back to the high court alleging that the special prosecutor appointed to her case, former New Orleans judge Laurie White, had refused to recall the alias capias arrest warrant despite the stay.

“I object to the removal of the capias (warrant), as the accused should not get any more preferential treatment than any other criminally charged defendant,” White allegedly told Murrill’s legal team, according to their filing to the Supreme Court.

The Louisiana Supreme Court issued another order late Friday night, saying it was “in order to add clarity and specificity where none should have been required.” The order recalled Murrill’s arrest warrant, ordered White and law enforcement to remove the warrant from law enforcement databases, and ordered White and law enforcement to “take all necessary actions to comply with this Order.”

The court’s vote on recalling the warrant was 4-3, with Justices Billy Burris, Cade Cole, Jefferson Hughes and Jay McCallum voting in the majority. Chief Justice John Weimer and Justices Piper Griffin and John Michael Guidry each dissented. Weimer and Guidry had also dissented earlier Friday from the decision to stay Murrill’s indictment; Griffin had voted in favor of the stay.

“It is said that procedure is the handmaiden of substance, but in criminal cases procedural rules are indispensable to serve justice and ensure that all are treated equally,” Weimer wrote in his Friday night dissent over recalling the warrant. “Yet, ironically, on the eve of this July 4th when our nation will commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, this court is once again called upon to provide exceptions to the normal process pursuant to another feigned emergency by one party.”

Griffin wrote in a dissent that recalling the warrant goes to the merits of the case. Guidry wrote in his dissent that the majority had elevated “power and privilege over process.”

“This is yet another unprecedented preferential act by the majority bestowing a privilege that no other criminally charged defendant can reasonably expect to receive,” Guidry wrote.

This is a developing story, check back later for more.