COLUMNIST EMPLOYED FAULTY LOGIC

I wish to respond to Michael Gorman's Aug. 26 column, "Rethinking this
nonsense."

As the prosecutor who handled the case in question from its inception,
I would begin by counseling Mr. Gorman against trying to analyze a
legal proceeding without looking at all of the facts. As a prosecutor,
that is what I do for a living, and I have come to learn that there is
no one punishment that fits every crime nor one sentence that fits
every defendant.

Mr. Gorman's disdain for anti-marijuana legislation is clear, yet his
arguments are far from consistent. On the one hand, he criticizes my
office for our attempts to uphold the rule of law, asking, "How many
people are in America's prisons right now because of nonviolent drug
offenses?"

Yet he then berates us for not incarcerating the defendant. Is he
upset because Mr. Zugsberger is not in jail? Is he upset with the
legal system for the war on drugs? Should no drug offender, or perhaps
all drug offenders, be in prison?

He continues: "I know it's a crime. But don't we have more important
things to do?" The answer to his rhetorical question is a clear, "Yes,
and we also deal with those important things every day as well."

During the same week that Mr. Zugsberger's case was successfully
concluded, my boss, Cam Morvant, also obtained a conviction on one of
the oldest outstanding homicides in Lafourche Parish. Was the
conviction of Derrick Odomes not more worthy of a Comet column than a
pot case? Our office prosecuted the murder of the Rev. Hunter Horgan
all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in pursuit of justice not only
for a family but for a congregation and a community as well. The point
is we do handle "more important things" every day, but no crime is too
small to merit our attention, either.

"Let's get this straight," Mr. Gorman continues. "This legal case of
massive importance, meriting a self-congratulatory press release and
all, resulted in a suspended sentence,"

There is no hiding Mr. Gorman's sarcasm. But he misses the point of
the press release. Or else intentionally obscures it.

Our office has written countless press releases over the years,
delivered to all media outlets that cover Lafourche Parish, in an
attempt to keep the public informed on cases in which there is public
interest. We consider this our obligation. We enjoy a healthy, open
relationship with all media, including the Daily Comet and The
Courier, and we will continue to nurture these relationships.

But it was the Daily Comet that repeatedly made Mr. Zugsberger's
self-professed crusade front-page material, not the District
Attorney's Office. The "massive importance" noted by Mr. Gorman was
generated exclusively by the defendant, with no little help from the
Comet and Courier.

To be clear, I do not fault the newspaper for any attention given to
this case or Mr. Zugsberger's cause and respect that Mr. Gorman may
have strong opinions on the subject. However, if his problem is with
the mere existence of marijuana laws, his frustration should be
directed toward the Legislature. Our job is to enforce all laws on the
books, not just the ones that we like.

I would ask Mr. Gorman one question, and hope that he answers it
honestly, if only to himself: If Mr. Zugsberger had been sent to
prison, would he not have railed against our office for taking up
limited prison space? Because of Mr. Gorman's a priori position, no
action by the District Attorney's Office would have been satisfactory.
So what does he really expect?

If there is a perfect sentence in this case, I notice that it was not
suggested by Mr. Gorman. I can only say that it was reached after fair
and full deliberation by both parties, with guidance from the judge.
Judges pass sentences, not prosecutors. And while we agreed with his
recommendation in this case, there were many factors that went into
this decision. We did not beg Mr. Zugsberger to plead to a felony. He
did so of his own free will.

It seems that Mr. Gorman ascribes a bloodlust to our prosecution that
never existed, yet at the same time is amazed that we chose not to
slake our imaginary thirst. It would have been very easy, in light of
all that was said in the media by Mr. Zugsberger, to take a hard
stance against him. But we didn't, and when he finally came forward
with a sincere desire to accept responsibility for his actions, I feel
we responded with fairness.

Before closing, I would like to point out that it is not my intention
to be a crusader in the political debate over the legalization of
marijuana. My passion is the rule of law. If the Louisiana Legislature
ever decides in its wisdom to legalize marijuana, you won't hear a
peep out of me. But I think I speak for every man and woman in the
District Attorney's Office when I say that before the day ever comes
when I willfully ignore the laws of this state, I'll turn in my badge
and find another line of work. I believe the people of this parish
deserve no less.