2022 State of the Judiciary Address - Press Release

<div>
 <div class="content">
 <div class="bcrumb">
 <ol class="row breadcrumb offprint">
 <li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
 <li><a href="PressRoom/2022">Press Room</a></li>

<li class="active">
2022 State of the Judiciary Address 
 </li>

</ol>

</div>
 </div>

<div id="mainbodycontent" class="col col-md-12 mainbodycontent" style="margin-top:-10px;"> 
&nbsp;<div align="left" style="text-align:center;"><table style="width:100%;background-color:#428bca;"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td bgcolor="#428bca" height="21" valign="middle" width="100%"><div align="center">2022 Press Releases</div></td></tr></tbody></table><table width="16%" style="width:100%;"><tbody><tr></tr></tbody></table></div><table style="width:100%;text-align:center;"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="82" style="text-align:left;width:71px;">CONTACT:&nbsp;</td><td width="253" style="text-align:left;width:1039px;">Trina S. Vincent 504-310-2590</td></tr></tbody></table><div align="left" style="text-align:center;"><table style="width:100%;border-spacing:3px;background-color:#f7ebc6;"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="38%" style="text-align:left;">March 15, 2022</td><td width="62%">FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</td></tr></tbody></table></div>&nbsp;2022 STATE OF THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS TO THE JOINT SESSION OF THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE BY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN L. WEIMER SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2022, 3:00 P.M.&nbsp; HOUSE CHAMBEROn Tuesday, March 15, 2022, Chief Justice John L. Weimer delivered the State of the Judiciary Address. His remarks included the following. -&nbsp;<a href="/Press_Release?p=2022_State_of_the_Judiciary_Address_Video">Watch the Video</a>President Cortez and Speaker Schexnayder, President pro tem Mizell, Speaker pro tem Magee, ladies and gentlemen of the Louisiana Legislature, and also the staff of the Legislature,I consider it an honor and am grateful to be provided an opportunity to address the Legislature on behalf of a group of fellow public servants, the judges and staff of the judiciary, who share the same concern as do the public servants and their employees who serve in this branch of government&ndash;our common concern is how to work together to best serve the citizens of our state. This is the first time a chief justice appears before the Legislature since 2018, due to scheduling and COVID issues.Roughly 45 years ago, I sat in the back of this chamber, in this very corner. Needless to say, Representative Francis Thompson was here and I got to know him. I had the invaluable learning experience all those years ago to serve as a legislative assistant to a Senator&ndash;Harvey Peltier, Jr, and a Representative&ndash;Billy Tauzin, who went on to serve in Congress. Both served in the Legislature in the 1970&rsquo;s, apparently before many of you were born, except for my friend, Representative Thompson.My colleagues on the Supreme Court and I know very well the sacrifices each of you, and your families, make for you to serve. We thank you for that service. While sitting in the back of this chamber all those years ago, I allowed myself just a moment to contemplate the possibility of one day addressing legislative colleagues from this very podium. Like most legislative assistants, I guess I contemplated the possibility of serving in the Legislature. I have continued to work for the State of Louisiana in various judicial capacities, and last year became the 26th Chief Justice. Like you, it wasn&rsquo;t the financial rewards, but the opportunity to serve that attracted me to public service. I learned how gratifying it is to be of service to others, Mr. Speaker, growing up working in my father&rsquo;s service station.I am joined today by my colleagues on the Supreme Court. By custom, we do things by seniority, but custom must yield to old fashion good manners and etiquette. Our newest colleague is Justice Piper Griffin of New Orleans. Justice Jay McCallum of Farmerville, is a former legislator; Justice Will Crain of Bogalusa and Madisonville, worked as a legislative aide to Senator Sixty Rayburn. All three of these Justices are relatively new to the Supreme Court, but are experienced jurists. Also here today are: Justice Jimmy Genovese of St. Landry Parish and the greater Opelousas metro area; Justice Scott Crichton of Shreveport and Webster Parish; and Justice Jeff Hughes of Walker and Denham springs. All of the Justices came up through the ranks of what I refer to as judicial first responders, having served as trial judges addressing citizens&rsquo; legal issues face to face and person to person. I am proud of my colleagues, individually and collectively, and together we work hard resolving the many cases before us as a group. The most important case we decide is the case immediately before the court. We are also joined by a new Clerk of Court, daughter of former Representative Ken Odinet, Veronica Odinet Koclanes, who was once a staff member for the Legislature.Acknowledging the potential risk of being too basic, the judiciary, of course, is a separate and coequal branch of government, which performs core constitutional functions essential to our system of democracy and our constitutional system of checks and balances. The judiciary provides a forum for citizens to resolve disagreements, for adjudicating criminal cases, for ensuring constitutional rights are protected, and for addressing issues involving rights related to life, liberty, and property. In the course of a day on the bench, a judge may be called upon to resolve family matters involving the most fundamental and important relationships in society, or to determine how long someone must be incarcerated, or to determine the remedy when someone is involved in a tragic accident, or to determine an esoteric constitution matter, or to resolve a complicated tax question. On average, over the last five years, more than 1.2 million filings occurred annually in Louisiana courts. That means, if today is an average day, there will be 3,287 filings, which is over twice the number of bills filed here. Pre-COVID studies nationally indicate that approximately one percent of a state&rsquo;s population will appear in courts statewide on a weekly basis.I firmly believe that a judge is a public servant who serves by being dedicated to the principles of justice, fairness, independence, and impartiality while applying the law as written by the Legislature and signed into law by the executive. Based on our civil law heritage, the Louisiana Civil Code teaches that the sources of law are legislation and custom, which cannot abrogate legislation. Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will. When the law is clear and unambiguous, and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written by the Legislature. Cases involving statutory construction often acknowledge that judges &ldquo;begin, as we must, with the statutory language enacted by the Legislature.&rdquo; This court does not &ldquo;legislate from the bench.&rdquo;Daily, and often many times in a day, judges are called upon to separate fact from fiction, truth from untruth. Judges are called upon to address infinitely difficult issues related to those who perceive that they have been wronged or have been wronged, committed a wrong, or are accused of wrongful behavior, and, after listening carefully and patiently, judges attempt to make it right based on the law. My belief is that judges do not declare winners or losers in litigation, but rather, apply the law to the facts to reach a solution. When people are treated as equals and impartiality prevails, society benefits because a disagreement is resolved and where there was conflict, there is now certainty.Allow me to speak to finances: the judicial budget is a microcosm of the state budget, meaning the judicial budget has, like the state budget, constitutionally mandated expenditures that cannot be cut; statutorily dedicated funds that must be spent on the dedicated purpose; interagency transfers; and federal grants&ndash;all of which significantly limit the ability of the judiciary&ndash;just like the state--to respond to budgetary challenges in funding core judicial functions.For fiscal year 2022, the judicial budget, including the programs I will address momentarily, is slightly less than one-half of one percent of the entire state of Louisiana budget. Last year, the Legislature restored some of the cuts from 5 years ago, but as you know, inflation has risen exponentially.The current fiscal year judicial budget is only $4 million above the budget from July 1, 2015, even though the mandated expenses, such as healthcare and LASERS have increased by $6 million, which does not account for general inflation in other areas. If the inflation factor of the Division of Administration were applied to the judicial budget from six years ago, we would get $4 million more than we are currently requesting. So, from my perspective, we are saving the state $4 million.As valuable and indispensable as your employees and staff are to you, our employees and staff are as valuable and indispensable to us. We need to recognize that value, particularly due to the inflation figures of the past year.In our system of democracy, the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary depends on its independence. The declaration of independence referenced the lack of judicial independence as a grievance against the king. Let&rsquo;s not repeat that history. Granted, independence must be tempered with responsibility, respect, and comity. The Legislature has appropriately asserted its independence. The framers of our federal constitution were clear at the time of the birth of our nation that an independent judiciary was critical to the future of our nation.Independence is contingent, in part, on proper funding. For our system of democracy to survive and flourish, the public must believe our courts have the necessary tools to render fair and impartial decisions.The Legislature, year before last, provided $7 million of CARES Act funds that were onetime funds spent on onetime expenses related to the coronavirus, as required by federal law. As good stewards of these funds, the judiciary spent a portion of the funds on onetime expenses primarily to improve technology so the judiciary could continue to function to provide access to our system of justice during the continuing pandemic. I will come back to these funds later. I am proud to say that, although courthouses had to shutter due to public health issues, the courts remained open virtually and judges implemented and learned new technology to ensure our system of justice remained available. Jurisdictions innovated and utilized auditoriums, gyms, and even onsite tents to ensure public safety while conducting court proceedings. Throughout the pandemic, judges continued to provide services to our citizens in innovative and creative ways.The Supreme Court established a Technology Commission, which has initiated a plan to bring every jurisdiction to a more consistent level of technology across our state, which is especially important to our rural areas. Technology is saving time and costs for litigants, is accommodating those who have legal issues before the courts, and provides access to justice. While we took a first step in making sure that our judges had the hardware that they needed to conduct court proceedings remotely, and to meet technological challenges, however, that was just the beginning and we are currently working on a proposal to seek funding for additional technological enhancements which would ensure that all of judges have the tools they need to run a court in the 21st-century and address cyber-security challenges. We are also working on the legislation known as clean slate and we look forward to our continued discussions with Representative Royce Duplessis on this important legislation.The Supreme Court&rsquo;s Technology Commission has been ably chaired by a judge now known, particularly in this chamber, as the spouse of Representative Laurie Schlegel. I am proud to share that her husband, Judge Scott Schlegel, received the prestigious William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence from the National Center for State Courts, conferred by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Judge Schlegel received this award, which is one of the highest judicial honors in the country, for his efforts in using and promoting technology in the Louisiana court system, and is the first Louisiana judge so honored.Judge Yvette Alexander, who serves on the Baton Rouge City Court, was sworn in as president of the American Judges Association last year. This association is the largest independent organization of judges from all jurisdictions and levels of courts throughout the United States and Canada. Chosen by a vote of her peers, her selection is a reflection of Judge Alexander&rsquo;s dedication to our system of justice and her leadership. Her presidency was to have an economic benefit to Louisiana because judges planned to come from all over the country for a conference, which had to be scaled back due to the pandemic. Judge Alexander is the fifth Louisiana judge to lead this international organization.In addition to core functions such as resolving disputes and administering justice, allow me, in summary fashion, to touch on what our citizens and this body receive in return for their investment in the judiciary. I refer to this as an investment because there is an economic and societal return. Please note that Louisiana is in a distinct minority of states in which the Supreme Court operates all of these programs, many of which are operated by agencies of other states such as departments of corrections or departments of children and family services.Drug &amp; Specialty Courts include drug treatment courts, Family Preservation Courts, DWI Courts, mental health courts, Veterans Courts, and Re-entry Courts. All of these courts require additional work and training for which the judges do not receive additional pay, but they receive the immense satisfaction of serving others&ndash;much like each of you. These courts teach personal responsibility and accountability and favor rehabilitation over incarceration, reduce recidivism, and save the state money in corrections, mental health, and healthcare, while also saving souls and families.I can tell you about statistics for these programs. For example, based on the most recent information, since the inception of drug courts in Louisiana, 923 drug-free babies have been born to drug court participants for an estimated cost savings to the state of $230,750,000. And, drug court participants work significant hours of community service every year, which equates to free labor for the state.I can also tell you how most of those who enter drug courts don&rsquo;t have a job and/or education. Almost all who graduate have a job and/or an education.We are grateful for the Legislature&rsquo;s investment in the judicial budget, which supports this type of occurrence. If you wish to see remarkable transformations, attend a drug court graduation, or read the testimonial of graduates, such as the following. Said one Veterans Court participant: &ldquo;the benefits of attending Veterans Court are immeasurable. If I had to pick out the greatest things, they would have to be the reinstallation of the core values I had as a member of the armed forces. Values such as integrity, service, and excellence. Veterans Court mandated that I return to a lifestyle that was honorable.&rdquo;The Legislature&rsquo;s investment also allows the judiciary to administer the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA).<ul><li>These advocates are community volunteers who advocate for the most vulnerable people in our state&ndash;children who have been abused or neglected.</li><li>These extraordinary ordinary citizens are specially trained and vetted and are appointed to the case of one child, or sibling group, unlike caseworkers and attorneys who carry heavy caseloads.</li><li>CASA volunteers have provided critical services for children throughout the COVID crisis.</li><li>There are 17 local CASA programs serving 41 of 42 judicial districts in 61 of 64 parishes. In 2021, 1,610 CASA volunteers, your neighbors, friends, and family members served 3,490 children, and they dedicated 53,447 volunteer hours equaling $1,525,383 in savings for the state. More importantly, 1,968 of these children were able to leave foster care to safe, permanent homes, saving the state approximately $2,400 per month, per child, amounting to millions more in savings.</li></ul>The court also manages the Families In Need of Services assistance program, or FINS, that serves to effectively address self-destructive behaviors by a child and conduct by other family members which contribute to the child&rsquo;s harm and which warrant court intervention so that appropriate services to remedy the family&rsquo;s dysfunction can be secured. The most common status offenses where children get into what I call a &ldquo;R.U.T.&rdquo;&ndash;they are running away, ungovernable, and truant.Domestic violence is still far too prevalent in Louisiana and throughout the nation. Louisiana has long ranked near the top in annual surveys of states regarding domestic violence. It is critical to address the protection of victims in our state by making resources widely available. The Louisiana Protective Order Registry (LPOR) is a statewide repository of court orders of protection for victims of domestic and dating violence, stalking and sexual assault. As such it offers important access to information needed by law enforcement and courts to continue to provide protection to victims. The registry operates an on-call service available 24 hours a day/365 days per year which responds to over 1,700 annual inquiries from local, state, and federal agencies. LPOR won a national award from the FBI some years ago for its competence in addressing domestic violence.These programs are not the judiciary&rsquo;s &ldquo;core functions,&rdquo; and, if we did not manage these programs, our budget would go down drastically and we could fund our core functions. The irony of our budget is that we built these programs at the request and with the support of the Legislature and individual legislators, and we made these programs viable and available throughout the state. However, we are facing deficit spending and using some savings we accumulated over three decades to sustain the programs at the cost of the judiciary&rsquo;s core functions. The judiciary absolutely has to fund its core functions, so when we request additional investments, it is for these programs, which save the state money in other areas of the budget.I believe our judiciary should be &ldquo;F.I.T.,&rdquo; an acronym that reflects concepts of frugality, integrity, and transparency. Indeed, among judges, I am known as &ldquo;tight&rdquo; with state dollars, and that&rsquo;s when they are being kind. I prefer the term &ldquo;frugal.&rdquo;For example, as previously indicated, in 2020, the Legislature generously allocated to the judiciary $7 million of CARES Act money, which was described then as the quote &ldquo;coin of the realm.&rdquo; After months of court staff meetings with input from the justices and from legislators and legislative staffs, the judiciary found that the restrictions imposed by the CARES Act limited what the judiciary could spend and still be frugal.Rather than spending this money just to spend it, which after all is taxpayer money regardless of the source, we contacted our colleagues in the house and senate leadership and worked with the division of administration and the governor&rsquo;s office, and returned $5 million, which was desperately needed by local governments throughout the state in members&rsquo; districts. In a meeting before the Senate Finance Committee, after approval by Appropriations and the House, we completed the transfer of the $5 million, for which we got half of the $5 million and an &ldquo;IOU&rdquo; for the balance, secured by trust and good faith. It was described by Chairman White and those present at the meeting as a rare trifecta&ndash;a win, win, win where one branch returns funds to another branch that then reallocated the funds so the third branch could apply the funds where desperately needed. I am proud of the judiciary for initiating this effort and grateful that last year the IOU was satisfied.When we seek opportunities to work together, our citizens benefit. All I ask is that when we request appropriations, you please remember the judiciary once returned funds.We save money also. Working with my colleagues and our dedicated staff, the judiciary cancelled a long-time lease and brought the employees from the leased office space into the courthouse at 400 Royal Street in New Orleans&ndash;saving the state a quarter of a million dollars a year.Please allow me a moment to share an initiative. The judiciary has developed a program known as &ldquo;Judges in the Classroom and Students in the Courtroom.&rdquo; We have partnerships with the BESE Board; the Louisiana Commission on Civic Education, created by the Legislature and chaired by north Louisiana Judge Wendell Manning; the Louisiana Center for Law and Civic Education; the Louisiana State Library; the School Superintendents Association; the School Board Association; and others, to help educate our children about how all citizens are equal before the law, the consequences of inappropriate behavior, making good choices, and personal responsibility, while also teaching civics. Despite the pandemic waxing and waning last year and a major hurricane disrupting school schedules, judges positively impacted almost 10,000 students in classrooms and courtrooms throughout our state.Drug courts have demonstrated the power of the robe. Judges can have a positive impact on teaching our young people.I have reached out to a former teacher, who I suggest is still a teacher at heart and is now the President of the Senate, and he is interested in partnering with us, as is the House Speaker.Justice Crichton, as a district judge, proactively developed a program that teaches young people about the consequences of certain behavior in an effort to convince them not to see him in his professional capacity as a judge - 20,000 students benefitted from his teachings, which often included parents. He has re-instituted his programs as a Justice and teaches students and their parents in standing-room-only auditoriums and gyms.As previously mentioned, District Judge Wendell Manning of Monroe has been long involved in a program teaching civics to adults. District Judge Randy Bethancourt of Houma has taught over 20,000 students about our court system. He had a group of students scheduled to meet him prior to Hurricane Ida and kept the appointment in a severely damaged courthouse.A few judges are present representing all the many judges who have been involved in this outreach:<ul><li>Judge Randy Bethancourt *immediate past president of the Louisiana Center for Law and Civic Education</li><li>Judge Wendell Manning *also attending as chair of the Louisiana Commission on Civic Education</li><li>Judge Karelia Stewart</li><li>Judge Jason Dagate</li><li>Judge Dawn Amacker</li><li>Judge Lee Faulkner</li><li>Judge Shayna Beevers Morvant *currently serving as president of the Louisiana Center for Law and Civic Education</li></ul>If any legislator wishes to partner with a judge in these teaching endeavors, please let us know. We urge you to join us in this outreach program.On another topic, I do not have to remind you the Legislature recently addressed reapportionment in a special session. I am positive many of you have a malaise&ndash;what I refer to as reapportionment fatigue, which manifests in eyes being crossed due to staring at maps and body aches from being beat up and beat down. Obviously, the Supreme Court districts as currently configured need some modification because of population shifts. However, in their adjudicative function, justices are not elected to represent people, but rather to apply principles essential to a properly functioning system of justice: impartiality, independence, the rule of law&ndash;all while realizing that all are equal before the law and all who appear must be&nbsp;treated with dignity and respect. As such, perfect population proportionality of judicial districts is not legally required.I believe the districts can and should reflect the historical boundaries that have long existed so as to maintain communities of like interests, and the court should reflect the rich geographical diversity of our state. I do not believe it appropriate for the court as a separate branch of government to opine on what is a task constitutionally assigned to the Legislature, but I believe individual justices have an obligation to confer with legislators. Benjamin Franklin said about democracy: &ldquo;It is the wearer of the shoe who knows where it pinches.&rdquo; And, just like each of you knows your district, each of the Justices knows the district they serve. Note, I did not say &ldquo;their districts.&rdquo; Like you, we hold seats in trust for the time elected. Besides respecting the community of interest in the current makeup of the judicial districts and not excessively dividing parishes, the court as a whole should provide opportunities to elect those who reflect the rich diversity of our great state. Because the Supreme Court acts as a single entity, with each justice casting one vote, reflecting our state&rsquo;s diversity will foster respect for the rulings.Louisiana&rsquo;s system of court costs and fees is an immensely significant issue that needs attention. Speaker pro tempore Magee heads the Louisiana Commission on Justice System Funding, which is working vigorously to unravel and improve this system that federal courts have ruled, in two cases that are now final, has flaws.While I am a firm believer in the &ldquo;user pays&rdquo; principle, some who show up in court often simply cannot pay exceptionally high fees and costs. We cannot afford to fund our judicial system strictly on the backs of the impoverished.Additionally, for far too long our state has shifted the costs of our state court system to local government and has done so with fines, fees, and costs to keep the system afloat. I will admit there was historically some heel dragging by the judiciary in the past, but no more. In conjunction with the Commission on Justice System Funding, an analysis was performed last year with the assistance of judges statewide by the Supreme Court staff and is posted on the Supreme Court&rsquo;s website. We cannot continue to rely on local governments to fund the state judiciary because the funding of our justice system should not be contingent on whether a court is in an impoverished area of our state. This system of funding is antiquated and does not ensure justice or equality statewide. Let us work together to rectify this inefficient and antiquated system.I have been in discussions with judges, legislators, and other judicial stakeholders regarding how to ensure that the judiciary is efficient, effective, and reflects the rich diversity of our state. Once, years ago, while presenting the judicial budget, I was asked &ldquo;how many judgeships did the judiciary create?&rdquo; My response was that the judiciary did not create any judgeships, that we have precisely and exactly the number of judgeships established by the constitution. The judiciary has never created a judicial position and the judiciary cannot eliminate a judicial position. Adding and eliminating judicial positions are legislative functions. No doubt in recognition of our system of checks and balances, our constitution wisely requires a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber to change the number of judges in any judicial district. It is important to remember that judges must remain independent to apply the rule of law without fear of reprisal when a judges makes a decision fully supported by the law, but which may prove unpopular.In 2006, after Hurricane Katrina, the Legislature asked the Supreme Court to study and provide information and recommendations on the appropriate number of district court judgeships. We responded and submitted what became known as the Lentini Report, because the author of the requesting legislation was Senator Art Lentini of Jefferson Parish. The Lentini Report contained several recommendations, including developing a permanent process for determining the appropriate number of judgeships, including reducing judgeships when necessary, preferably by attrition. In 2007, through another resolution sponsored by Senator Lentini, the Legislature requested that the Court provide yearly information on the&nbsp; appropriate number of judgeships. The Supreme Court responded by submitting reports to the Legislature from 2008 through 2011, which contained the requested analysis of judicial workload in courts throughout the state and caseload data. These reports remain accessible to the public on the Supreme Court&rsquo;s website. In 2011, the Legislature again requested a comprehensive study of judges, which was done and submitted to the Legislature, along with the conclusion that the workpoint formula was outdated and invalid, and needed to be revised. That report is known as the Act 143 Report.At this time, based on population shifts and the latest filings data, I suggest the Legislature and judiciary establish a Joint Task Force. This Task Force would not re-invent the wheel, but would instead revisit previous recommendations, obtain a viable workpoint analysis, and take action to make the judiciary more efficient and effective, while ensuring diversity. The only way this can be done is with all stakeholders in the justice system having a seat at the table.Relatedly, any attempts to reapportion the judiciary, except the Supreme Court, should await an analysis after a study, funded by the Legislature separate from the judicial budget, regarding a work-points analysis, which should be utilized along with data on population and a filing analysis. There are two entities that have provided proposals for the study&ndash;the National Center for State Courts and the Justice Management Institute. This work must be done hand-in-glove with the fines, fees, and costs analysis to ensure the judiciary is effective and efficient. Any attempt to alter judicial districts, other than the Supreme Court, should await this analysis.Please know that the justices and judges are disappointed in the current state of some lawyer advertising, believing it unprofessional. That disappointment is not new and was reflected in changes to the rules governing lawyer advertisements some years ago. These changes were made based on recommendations by constitutional law scholars. Unfortunately, the federal courts determined that changes violated their views on the first amendment after a suit was filed before the ink was dry on the rule changes. The first amendment and our state constitution both protect freedom of speech and, in 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court held that lawyer advertising, like other advertising, was protected by the First Amendment. The federal courts are reluctant to enforce limitations on free speech for fear that our precious right to freedom of speech will be suppressed.We must use extreme caution in regulating speech, even if we find it unprofessional or disappointing. Please note, the court&rsquo;s rules have long prohibited &ldquo;false and misleading&rdquo; advertisements, but that becomes exceptionally hard to prove and prevent given the broad view of the First Amendment and that federal courts are reluctant to limit speech. The justices pledge to continue to work with the Legislature on this challenging issue and the Court has enacted some rules to address these issues. Please keep a judicial seat available at the table.Although we continue to address this challenging issue, but please note carefully&ndash;if a rule or statute is struck down by a federal judge on the basis of unconstitutionality, the entity that enacted the rule or statute or attempts to enforce the rule pays the legal fees and costs of whomever filed the suit. The judiciary&rsquo;s budget simply cannot afford to risk paying those attorney fees.On another topic related to the functioning of the justice system, it is prudent, wise, and necessary to properly fund public defenders to ensure that those who are presumed innocent until proven guilty will be properly represented. We have come to understand that, occasionally, innocent people are convicted and incarcerated, while the real criminals continue to prey on society. The Legislature has authorized compensation for those who were wrongfully incarcerated, but prove their innocence.Astute prosecutors know that public defenders are an essential component to our system of justice. Too many have spent too much time incarcerated for crimes they did not commit, at&nbsp;too great a cost to the state without providing safety to society. I commend the Legislature for its efforts to increase funding for indigent defense.We thank you for your dedicated service to your district and to our state in these difficult and trying times. The judiciary and the Legislature have enjoyed a close working relationship that ultimately benefits our citizens. History teaches that the citizens of Louisiana have always responded to these challenges with perseverance, resolve, and tenacity. Let us work collaboratively, my friends, to serve our citizens well.On a personal note, thank you for inviting me to address the Legislature, 45 years after thinking one day I may do so.&nbsp;&nbsp;-30-&nbsp;For more information contact Louisiana Supreme Court Public Information Specialist/Coordinator Trina S. Vincent at <a href="mailto:tvincent@lasc.org">tvincent@lasc.org</a> or (504) 310-2590.&nbsp;<div class="picgrid"><div>&nbsp;</div></div>
 </div>

</div>