State Of Louisiana v. Darrell Draughn

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 14, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DARRELL DRAUGHN
No. 2025-KD-01181
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Number(s) 21217;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 14, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket.
Crain, J., concurs.
Griffin, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JDH
JBM
CRC
11/14/2025 "See News Release 051 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KD-01181
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DARRELL DRAUGHN
On Supervisory Writ to the 1st Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo
PER CURIAM
Writ granted; relief granted in part. In this capital case, the district court
granted defendant’s motions for under-seal ex parte subpoenas duces tecum for the
purpose of investigating issues that may be raised in his counseled supplemental
post-conviction relief application.1 In granting the motions on an ex parte basis, the
district explained that “any further disclosures about or justifications for granting the
ex parte, sealed subpoenas applied for [ ] by Petitioner cannot be provided to the
State without potentially revealing the legal strategy of Petitioner.”
Certain pre-trial confidential ex parte discovery may be allowed to ensure
fairness to indigent defendants who, unlike those without fina ncial resources, are
reliant on public resources to support their defense. This Court has allowed ex parte
hearings in those circumstances because it “feared that opening the hearings would
‘potentially expos[e] defendant’s defense to prosecutorial review when a monied
defendant’s defense would remain inviolate.’” State v. Touchet, 1993-2839, p. 8 (La.
9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213, 1218 (quoting People v. Loyer, 425 N.W.2d 714, 722
(1988)). This “is illustrative of the Fifth Amendment-based principle that the
defendant has a right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own
1 This Court has recognized subpoenas duces tecum as a legitimate means to supplement the trial
record for consideration of post-conviction relief claims. See Hayden v. Boutte, 2019-0968 (La.
4/13/21), 313 So.3d 971.

2
witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources.” Id.,
1993-2839, p. 9, 642 So.2d at 1218.
Conversely, prisoners seeking post-conviction relief are no longer presumed
innocent and no longer have a Fifth Amendment right to insist the state fulfill its
burden to prove his guilt. See e.g. La. C.Cr.P. art. 920.2 (The state has no burden of
proof in a post-conviction relief proceeding). Thus, the rationale of p reventing the
“premature disclosure of the defendant’s case and a corresponding unfair advantage
for the state in its prosecution” does not apply in the post-conviction context.
Touchet, 1993-2839 at p. 10, 642 So.2d at 1219. Accordingly, there is no attendant
concern that these rights may be unfairly balanced concerning applicants for post-
conviction relief even if ex parte proceedings are warranted in a similar pre-trial
context.
We recognize that there may be other legitimate reasons why, pursuant to its
inherent authority, a district court may “issue such writs and orders as may be
necessary or proper in aid of its jurisdiction” in an ex parte manner. La.C.Cr.P. art.
17. For example, the justification required to request a subpoena under State v.
Marcelin, 2010-2036, p. 2 (La. 10/15/10), 46 So.3d 191, 193, may expose other
privileged information, such as attorney-client communications. Additionally, the
social history materials that the defendant seeks here may include private and
sensitive information about his family members. Such materials may appropriately
be held confidential and protected from public view. In those instances, the district
court may reasonably determine it would be wrong to place the materials in the
public record even if there is no reason to keep them from the State, or for good
cause shown might find it “fundamentally unfair” to require disclosure to the state.
State v. Brown, 2016-0274, p. 3 (La. 4/22/16), 192 So.3d 720, 722.
For these reasons, we remand the matter to determine whether there are
legitimate reasons justifying completely sealed proceedings relating to the se

3
subpoenas, or alternatively if there is good reason to seal from the public record at
the current stage even if disclosure to the state is not shown to be fundamentally
unfair. The order sealing the subpoenas shall remain in effect until the trial court has
ruled on remand. In all other respects, relief is denied.
REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED