In Re: Judge G. Michael Canaday Fourteenth Judicial District Court Parish Of Calcasieu State Of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #046
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 20th day of October, 2023 are as follows:
BY Crain, J.:
2023-O-00735 IN RE: JUDGE G. MICHAEL CANADAY FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU STATE OF LOUISIANA
PUBLIC CENSURE ORDERED. SEE OPINION.

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-O-00735
IN RE: JUDGE G. MICHAEL CANADAY
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
CRAIN, J.
This matter is before the court on the recommendation of the Judiciary
Commission of Louisiana that Judge G. Michael Canaday be publically censured.
We agree.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In State v. Bartie, 14th Judicial District Court Case Number 12615-16, Div. G,
Judge Canaday presided over multiple hearings relating to the defendant’s indigency
and his request for ancillary funding for defense experts. Because the hearings
involved the disclosure of defense strategy, they were conducted without the district
attorney, and the transcripts were seal ed. Judge Canaday found the defendant was
not indigent and denied his request for funding.
The defense filed a writ application with the Third Circuit Court of Appe al
challenging the indigency ruling. To facilitate filing the application, Judge Canaday
granted defense counsel’s request for transcripts of the hearings. On May 23, 2019,
after defense counsel moved to obtain a missing transcript, Judge Canaday ordered
the transcript be given to defense counsel and handwrote that it be “release[d] from
seal.”
Judge Canaday then received an email from the district attorney’s o ffice
asking whether his May 23, 2019 order gave the district attorney’s office access to

2

the transcripts, or only defense counsel and the Third Circuit. Defense counsel was
not copied with this email.
Amber Thibodeaux with the district attorney’s office followed up by texting
Judge Canaday that she sent him the email. Judge Canaday replied: “Since I don’t
believe the state could appeal my granting relief to the defense on funding, I don’t
think they can support the courts [sic] position to deny. The courts [sic] reasons will
be sufficient for the 3rd to review. If the 3rd requests a states [sic] response obviously
they could access the record.” Thibodeaux responded: “Thank you for getting back
with me. Enjoy your trip & safe travels! We’ll see you on the 9th.” Defense counsel
was not included in these communications.
Thibodeaux then emailed Judge Canaday a copy of the Third Circuit’s writ
action, noting the court of appeal reversed him and remanded. Judge Canaday
replied: “If the state wants to take up to the Supreme Court, I will unseal the record.
GMC.” Defense counsel was not copied on this email.
The district attorney’s office then filed a “Motion to Unseal All Documents
and Transcripts in Regards to Determining Indigency of the Defendant .” This
motion was styled neither ex parte nor unopposed. Without a hearing, on September
30, 2019, Judge Canaday signed an order granting the district attorney’s office the
requested relief. Defense counsel did not have an opportunity to respond. The
materials released by Judge Canaday included a transcript of a closed hearing where
defense strategy specific to Bartie was discussed, including experts and the ir
expected testimony.
After the September 30, 2019 ruling, defense counsel successfully argued for
Judge Canaday’s recusal from the Bartie case. Writ applications seeking reversal of
the recusal were denied by both the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The recusal and subsequent related writ applications resulted in the expenditure of

3

significant time, effort, and funds by both the state and defense counsel. There were
negative media reports concerning Judge Canaday’s actions.
Media reports prompted a Judiciary Commission investigation. Judge
Canaday cooperated with the investigation. He entered a stipulation of facts and
conclusions of law accepting responsibility for his actions. The Commission found
Judge Canaday engaged in improper ex parte communications and inappropriately
granted a state motion to release documents from seal without holding a hearing or
otherwise allowing defense counsel the opportunity to respond. The parties have
stipulated these actions violate Canons 1, 2, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(4), and 3A(6) of the Code
of Judicial Conduct and con stitute willful misconduct in violation of Article V,
Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. The Commission recommended that
he be publicly censured and pay costs. According to La. Const. Art. V, § 25(C), the
Louisiana Supreme Court is the only authority that can discipline a judge.
DISCUSSION
Judge Canaday has consistently acknowledged and apologized for his
misconduct and its impact on the judiciary. According to Judge Canaday, it was not
unusual for Thibodeaux to contact him or his secretary regarding scheduling or
issues with the daily docket. She contacted him about unsealing the Bartie record.
Judge Canaday knew any motion filed by the state to unseal the record would require
a contradictory hearing. He s tated he “did not intend” his communication with
Thibodeaux “to be a definitive response as to what my action would be, but only
send me a motion.” However, he acknowledged the language he used was
inappropriate and that it suggested he would grant such m otion. Judge Canaday
further admitted he “may have had some ego involved” after the Third Circuit
reversed him on his indigency ruling. He believes he may have had a “kne e-jerk”
reaction to his ruling being deemed incorrect. He wanted the issue before the

4

Louisiana Supreme Court and knew the district attorney’s office would have to file
a writ application.
Judge Canaday also admitted not carefully reviewing the state’s motion before
granting relief without a contradictory hearing or allowing the defens e to respond.
He said the motion was in a stack of hundreds of discovery-type motions presented
when he was without a magistrate and was duty judge. Judge Canaday had a very
heavy civil doc ket, but acknowledged this was “[n]ot an excuse, but part of what
was going on at the time.” He admitted “just signing things, and I’m not even
reading them . . . . I should have picked up on it because I’m the first one to tell you
that it should be a contradictory motion.”
While Judge Canaday said he got “kind of c aught up in a perfect storm,” he
also acknowledged he “created the situation,” “made legal error,” and “took away
from the esteem of the judiciary.” After defense counsel moved for his recusal,
Judge Canaday recognized there were “a series of failures on [his] part” and
determined he was “going to let somebody else look at it and make an independent
objective decision.” He agreed his eventual recusal was proper and confessed if he
was defense counsel, “I would have felt the same way.”
Judge Canaday’s actions violated : Canon 1, because he failed to observe a
high standard of conduct so as to preserve the integrity and independence of the
judiciary; Canon 2 , because he failed to avoid impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety; Canon 2A, because he failed to respect and comply with the law and to
act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary; Canon 3A(1), because he failed to be faithful to the law
and maintain prof essional competence in it; Canon 3A(4) , because he, in the
performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifested bias or prejudice;
Canon 3A(6), because he engaged in private or ex parte interviews, arguments or

5

communications designed to influence his judicial action; and La. Const. Art. V., §
25(C), because he engaged in willful misconduct relating to his official duty.
Considering these violations, discipline is required. In imposing discipline,
we are guided by the following: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance
or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent, and frequency of occurrence
of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the
courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or
in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the
acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his
conduct; (g) the length of service on the bench; (h) whether there have been prior
complaints about this judge; (i) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of
and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the extent to which the judge exploited his
position to satisf y his personal desires. In re: Chaisson , 549 So.2d 259, 266 (La.
1989).
(a) Is the misconduct an isolated instance or does it evidence a pattern of conduct
and (b) what is the nature, extent, and frequency of the acts of misconduct?

While the misconduct occurred in one judicial proceeding, it involved ex parte
communications that conveyed to the d istrict attorney’s office that it had special
access to Judge Canaday or an advantage in his court. His conduct resulted in
defense strategy being revealed in a second-degree murder case and gave the
impression of the judiciary favoring prosecutors and their requests, even when the
law requires otherwise.
(c) Did the misconduct occur in or out of the courtroom and (d) did the misconduct
occur in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life?

Although the misconduct occurred outside the courtroom, Judge Canaday was
at all times acting in his official capacity. It occurred in the course and scope of
Judge Canaday’s official duties in a high-profile second-degree murder case.

6

(e) Has the judge acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred and (f) has he
made an effort to change or modify his conduct?

Judge Canaday cooperated with this investigation and accepted responsibility
for his actions. He attested to implementing measures to prevent a recurrence. All
his communications now go through his legal assistant and any email must include
opposing counsel. He does not accept text messages. He reviews all motions before
him to determine whether they require a contradictory hearing , which is more
manageable now with a magistrate judge tasked with reviewing routine discovery -
type motions. Judge Canaday testified he is “much more cautious now in what I
sign.”
(g) How long has the judge served on the bench?
Judge Canaday took judicial office on January 1, 2001. At the time of the
misconduct, he was an experienced judge of over eighteen years . He should have
known not to engage in ex parte communications with the district attorney’s office,
not to advise how he would rule on a n unfiled motion to unseal records, and not to
grant such motion without a contradictory hearing.
(h) Have there been prior complaints about this judge?
Judge Canaday was previously cautioned by the Commission for restricting
the writing privileges of an incarcerated defendant who was awaiting trial, thus
violating Canons 2A and 3A(1). In that case, a fter the defendant contacted his
alleged victims, Judge Canaday denied the defendant writing privileges, except for
correspondence sent directly to the court . Though Judge Canaday claimed he was
protecting alleged victims from harassment and dealing with a difficult defendant,
the Commission was particularly concerned about the personal screening of
correspondence, potentially exposing Judge Canaday to case information from
outside the record. While that conduct differs from his current conduct, it similarly

7

involved potential prejudice to a criminal defendant, which could have resulted in
his recusal.
(i) What effect did the misconduct ha ve upon the integrity of and respect for the
judiciary?

Judge Canaday’s actions harmed the integrity of and respect for the judiciary.
His ex parte communications gave the impression he granted special access and
advantages to prosecutors regularly appear ing in his court. This impression was
reinforced when, upon receiving a motion to unseal records, Judge Canaday failed
to thoroughly review it and s ummarily granted it without the required hearing and
without providing defense counsel the opportunity to object. That is inconsistent
with a judge’s duty to serve as a neutral arbiter. His actions undermined the fair and
impartial administration of just ice. Upon media report ing on Judge Canaday’s
actions, public trust in and respect for the judiciary eroded.
(j) To what extent did the judge exploit his position to satisfy his personal desires?
The only evidence that Judge Canaday used his position to satisfy personal
desires is his acknowledgment that ego may have played a role in granting the state’s
motion, because he wanted the state to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to reinstate
his indigency ruling.
Applying these factors, Judge Canaday’s misconduct caused substantial harm
to public confidence in and respect for the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
In mitigation, he has apologized and appears genuinely remorseful for his
misconduct. He explained the circumstances surrounding his improper actions, has
taken measures to prevent a recurrence of the conduct, and has a single prior
meritorious complaint over his twenty-plus years as a judge.
The parties agree Judge Canaday should be publicly censured and pay costs,
which is supported by precedent. See In re Badeaux, 11-0214 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d
1273 (The court publicly censured Judge Badeaux for not recusing himself from a

8

divorce and custody proceeding between parents who were both friends of his,
engaging in ex parte communications with the father about custody, and signing a
legally deficient order in favor of the father .) We agree a public censure is
warranted.
DECREE
Judge G. Michael Canaday violated Canons 1, 2, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(4), and 3A(6)
of the Code of Judicial Conduct and committed willful misconduct in violation of
Article V, Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. It is ordered that Judge
Canaday be and h e is publicly censured. Judge Canaday is further ordered to pay
the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana $1,690.25 for costs.