Background
Edward Hayes, the respondent in a first-degree murder case pending in Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court, filed a motion for speedy trial on June 30, 2026. The motion included defense counsel’s affidavit certifying that the defense was prepared to proceed to trial within the time limits prescribed by Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 701.
The appellate record, however, showed that one week later defense counsel filed four subpoenas duces tecum seeking the same evidence previously requested in a motion to compel, despite having represented that the motion to compel was satisfied. Counsel also sought a subpoena requiring the coroner to appear at the next motion date, and numerous discovery items remained outstanding.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Court of Appeal granted the State’s application for supervisory writs. It concluded that defense counsel’s certification of readiness for trial was premature because counsel’s subsequent discovery efforts and the outstanding discovery contradicted the assertion that the defense was prepared to proceed.
The court reversed the motion for speedy trial and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The ruling addressed the prematurity of the defense certification rather than finally resolving the prosecution.
Key Takeaways
- A motion for speedy trial under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 701 must be supported by a meaningful certification that the defense is prepared to proceed within the statutory delays.
- Post-certification efforts to obtain significant evidence may demonstrate that counsel’s declaration of readiness was premature.
- Outstanding discovery in a first-degree murder prosecution supported reversal of the speedy-trial order and remand for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Louisiana courts may look beyond counsel’s formal affidavit when evaluating whether a defendant is actually prepared to proceed under article 701. Litigation conduct inconsistent with readiness—particularly continued pursuit of material discovery—can undermine a speedy-trial certification.
For prosecutors and defense attorneys, the ruling highlights the importance of aligning an article 701 certification with the case’s actual discovery posture before requesting an accelerated trial timetable.