Civil Rights Corps and ACLU Sue District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro to End the Coercion and Jailing of Crime Victims and Witnesses Based on Fake, Illegal Subpoenas and False Information Provided to the Courts
Lawsuit Launches Organizations’ Nationwide Efforts to Hold Abusive Prosecutors Accountable
NEW ORLEANS — To end the unconstitutional deception and jailing of crime victims and witnesses by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, Civil Rights Corps, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Louisiana filed a lawsuit today in federal court against District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro and ten assistant district attorneys. The lawsuit details District Attorney Cannizzaro’s illegal scheme of fabricating subpoenas to coerce crime victims and witnesses of crimes into submitting to interrogations, and presenting fraudulent information in court to persuade judges to issue arrest warrants. For crime victims and witnesses who don’t appear as ordered, the District Attorney’s Office further abuses its power and authority to have these witnesses, who are victims of crimes, put in jail.
“When the officer brought me to the jail, I started to cry,” said Renata Singleton, a victim of domestic violence and a plaintiff in today’s lawsuit who was jailed for five days after not responding to fake subpoenas from District Attorney Cannizzarro’s office. “I was so worried about my three children back at home. I called my sister in a panic to have her take care of them. I’d just started a new job, and I was terrified of losing it.” Ms. Singleton’s bond was set at $100,000. Ms. Singleton’s ex-boyfriend, who pled guilty to the charges, had a bond of $3,500 and was sentenced to probation without jail time.
“This case is not about isolated acts of misconduct. It is about pervasive abuses of power that have led to the harassment, humiliation, and imprisonment of witnesses and crime victims in New Orleans,” said Katie Chamblee-Ryan, an attorney at Civil Rights Corps and the coordinator of its Prosecutor Project. “This district attorney’s office has asked the courts to put at least 150 victims and witnesses in jail. In a significant number of these cases, they broke the law to do it. Our plaintiffs want to ensure that the district attorney’s office can never harm anyone this way again.”
The fake subpoenas sent by District Attorney Cannizzaro’s office threaten recipients with fines or imprisonment if they don’t meet with prosecutors, but these documents have no legal force. No crime victim or witness is required to submit to private, out-of-court interrogations by prosecutors unless lawfully subpoenaed. The fake subpoenas hadn’t been approved by a judge, as required by Louisiana law. The district attorney’s office used the fake subpoenas in a variety of criminal cases, including second-degree murder and disturbing the peace.
“The people of Orleans Parish elected District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro to uphold the Louisiana law and the U.S. Constitution, yet he has deliberately and repeatedly broken the law and obliterated the rights of some of the parish’s most vulnerable residents: crime victims and witnesses,” said Anna Arceneaux, senior staff attorney with the ACLU. “This lawsuit marks the end of an era where top prosecutors can break the law with impunity, and prosecutors across the country should expect to be held accountable for these kinds of abuses of power.”
Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country.
“Louisiana is ground zero for the fight against mass incarceration, but we know we are not unique when it comes to top prosecutors who seek punishment at any costs instead of building trust with their communities to achieve justice,” said Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “We are glad to be taking on District Attorney Cannizzarro's abuses directly, and sending a message to other prosecutors in Louisiana and across the country that their abuses will be challenged.”
Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Lazonia Baham, was jailed for eight days after receiving fake subpoenas and declining to meet privately with prosecutors. Her daughter’s boyfriend had been murdered, and before receiving the fake subpoenas, Ms. Baham told District Attorney Cannizzaro’s office that she had seen the man accused of the murder around the corner from her house on the day of the killing. An assistant district attorney pressured Ms. Baham to say she had seen him in another location. She refused, and later, when she received the fake subpoenas, she didn’t go to the district attorney’s office. Ms. Baham was arrested and held without bond at the request of District Attorney Cannizzaro’s office.
Tamara Jackson is executive director of Silence Is Violence, a New Orleans organization that is a plaintiff in today’s lawsuit and that advocates for victims of crime and for safer communities. “One of the reasons Silence Is Violence formed was because when folks were coordinating with the DA’s office, often times their rights were infringed upon, they were abused by the system,” said Jackson. “It’s about getting what they [prosecutors] want and achieving their objectives, regardless of what the person is faced with.”
Plaintiff Marc Mitchell was shot multiple times while playing basketball with his nephews. He met with District Attorney Cannizzaro’s office several times and testified in court against the person charged with the shooting. After that conviction, an assistant district attorney met with Mr. Mitchell about a man the prosecutor’s office suspected of directing the shooting, but Mr. Mitchell felt pressured to say that he had seen something about the second man that he had not. When he declined to meet again with prosecutors, Cannizzaro’s office told a judge falsehoods about Mr. Mitchell to obtain an arrest warrant, such as alleging that had bought a bus ticket to leave town. Mr. Mitchell was arrested at the hotel where he worked, handcuffed, and taken by police through the hotel lobby in full view of hotel customers and his coworkers. He was released from jail a day later because a friend who works in the court system brought his case to the attention of a judge.
The Prosecutor Project at Civil Rights Corps brings aggressive, innovative litigation to hold prosecutors accountable for systemic misconduct. Prosecutors like District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro can’t be permitted to abuse their authority and break the law with impunity. The Prosecutor Project is committed to zealous advocacy on behalf of the many vulnerable individuals harmed by prosecutorial misconduct.
The ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice — an unprecedented effort to reduce the U.S. jail and prison population by 50% and to combat racial disparities in the criminal justice system — has launched a new multi-year initiative to make sure that prosecutors who break the law are held accountable for fueling mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal justice system, through legislative advocacy, voter education, and litigation. This lawsuit against the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office is the first of many to come across the country as we work towards much-needed prosecutorial reform.
For the complaint and more information about Singleton v. Cannizzaro:
Civil Rights Corps:
ACLU:
/cases/singleton-v-cannizzaro
ACLU of Louisiana:
For more about prosecutorial reform:
Civil Rights Corps’ Prosecutor Project:
ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice:
/blog/mass-incarceration/smart-justice/across-america-single-most-powerful-person-local-criminal
This press release can be found at:
/news/civil-rights-corps-and-aclu-sue-district-attorney-leon-cannizzaro-end-coercion-and-jailing
Smart Justice
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
Smart Justice
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Smart Justice
ACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their CommunitiesACLU Celebrates President Biden’s Clemency Announcement, Allowing Hundreds to Remain in Their Communities
WASHINGTON – President Biden heeded the calls of advocates and families today by granting commutations to close to 1,500 people who were released to home confinement at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act and pardons to 39 additional people, including many veterans and women. The CARES Act, passed in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed certain groups of people to serve part of their sentences at home to mitigate the dangers of COVID-19 in federal prisons. Since then, thousands of people have been allowed to serve part of their sentences at home, securing jobs, reconnecting with loved ones, and reintegrating into their communities. The American Civil Liberties Union advocated for the CARES Act and has been urging President Biden to provide clemency to CARES Act release recipients since 2021, launching a six-figure ad buy, engaging grassroots supporters, filing FOIA litigation, and more. “We are thrilled that President Biden has allowed people to remain with their families and communities, where they belong, said Cynthia W. Roseberry, director of policy and government affairs at the ACLU’s Justice Division. “The CARES Act was an unprecedented experiment in decarceration, and the data tells us it was incredibly successful. Of the over 13,000 people released, more than 99 percent have safely and successfully reintegrated into their communities. We urge Congress to build on the remarkable success of the CARES Act and pass other decarceration policies that prioritize compassion, redemption, and public safety.” “President Biden’s actions today also remind us of the incredible and unique power of executive clemency,” Roseberry continued. “The ACLU has long advocated for the categorical use of clemency to address unjust outcomes of the criminal legal system. While today’s announcement is wonderful, there is more to do in the final weeks before President Biden leaves office. We strongly urge President Biden to use his power to address this country's failed death penalty by commuting death row sentences.” According to data the ACLU obtained this year through FOIA litigation, the vast majority (71.8 percent) of those on home confinement had less than one year remaining in their sentence. Almost a quarter (23.5 percent) of CARES Act clemency recipients are older than 61 and over half (59.4 percent) are people of color. “Biden's announcement today means I can finally breathe a sigh of relief after 3.5 years of living with the fear of being sent back to prison for no reason,” said Won Lee, released on CARES Act home confinement in May 2021. “The second chance I got through the CARES Act allowed me to take care of my aging parents, restart my career, pursue a graduate degree, and receive treatment for the cancer I was diagnosed with shortly after returning home. Today's decision means I will no longer have to live with the uncertainty and fear that I will be unjustly uprooted from my life and family, who now depend on me. I am incredibly grateful and thrilled to sleep soundly tonight knowing I'll remain at home.” Learn more about the ACLU’s campaign to commute death row here: /campaigns-initiatives/president-biden-commute-the-row -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Smart Justice
Just City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail LawJust City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail Law
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Criminal Law Reform Project, ACLU of Tennessee, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of Just City Memphis to challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee’s unprecedented new bail law, arguing that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment by mandating unfair bail hearing procedures and discriminatory wealth-based detention. The law makes Tennessee the only state in the country to prohibit judges from considering whether people appearing before them will be able to pay for release. The new law, which went into effect on May 1, targeted successful bail reforms that Shelby County implemented following an agreement with the ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, Just City, and other local advocates. The agreement required the examination of a person’s financial circumstances prior to any bail decision; individualized bail hearings with counsel no later than three days after a person’s arrest; and imposition of secured money bail only as a last resort. As a result, more people returned home to their communities while at the same time lowering the number of people rearrested for new crimes. By rolling back these reforms, the Tennessee legislature has created a two-tiered system of justice, leaving those who cannot afford to pay detained indefinitely, even if they are not a flight or safety risk. Meanwhile, those who face the same charges but can afford to pay money bail are freed until trial. “Bail reform works, and it was working in Shelby County. More Tennesseans were returning home to live peacefully in their communities,” said Trisha Trigilio, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “This shameful legislation targets low-income and marginalized Tennesseans for pointless jail time. We will not allow Tennessee lawmakers to end successful bail reform for political gain.” "Our Constitution demands that judges make individualized determinations about pretrial release," said Josh Spickler, executive director at Just City. "This law prevents judges from doing that crucial work and results in the unnecessary detention of people who pose no risk to public safety because they can't afford to pay an arbitrary bail amount. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work." “We don't have to choose between safety and justice; we can have both if we maintain a bail system that is evidence-based, fair, and constitutional.” said Stella Yarbrough, legal director at the ACLU of Tennessee. “Everyone has a basic right to freedom, and this new law contradicts decades of constitutional precedent. Freedom for the wealthy and punishment for poor people of all races violates the Constitution and disproportionately impacts Black people and people with disabilities, while doing nothing to address the systemic causes of crime—like poverty and lack of opportunity.” Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Litigation Partner Craig Waldman added, “Tennessee’s law banning judges from considering an individual’s ability to pay bail is unfair and unconstitutional. The right to due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment is a bedrock of our justice system.” Just City is an organization dedicated to fighting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and income in Shelby County criminal proceedings, and has long advocated for pretrial practices that prioritize fair and sensible release decisions over a person’s ability to pay. Their lawsuit asks the court to declare that this new bail law violates the Fourteenth Amendment and requests a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the Shelby County Sheriff from enforcing this law. -
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Reproductive Freedom
+2 Issues
Court Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of AbortionCourt Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of Abortion
McALLEN, Texas – A federal judge ruled today that a lawsuit seeking accountability for the unlawful investigation and prosecution of Lizelle Gonzalez can proceed, rejecting attempts by Starr County officials to have the case dismissed. Gonzalez, represented by Garza Martinez, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas was unlawfully arrested, jailed, and charged with murder after a medication abortion she had in 2022. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancy. “When I first heard Lizelle’s story, I was outraged at the behavior of our elected officials,” said Cecilia Garza, attorney at Garza Martinez. “The court’s decision today to allow this case to proceed gives me hope that courts will not allow these types of egregious acts to continue. Law enforcement need to be held accountable to the laws that they took an oath to uphold.” In the motions to dismiss, the prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez’s constitutional rights. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez’s case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. “Immunity doctrine creates a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people’s rights, knowing they will face few – if any – consequences,” said Lauren Johnson, director of the ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. “While immunity often obstructs victims of misconduct from attaining accountability, the court’s decision today to allow the case to proceed will give Lizelle a chance to pursue the justice she deserves for being unlawfully targeted and prosecuted.” “Texas is one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to abortion health care, but even in Texas, the laws are uniform and clear that pregnant women cannot be criminally liable for having an abortion,” said David Donatti, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “We expect and demand that our elected officials follow the rule of law, and that is especially true for officials elected to enforce the laws with so much power over our daily lives and personal decisions.”