Judge upholds murder charge

A state district judge refused to throw out an indictment Thursday against a teenager accused of first-degree murder in the throat-slashing death of an 8-year-old boy, but delayed the suspect’s trial because a key defense witness will not be available until December.

Until Thursday’s hearing, trial for Trevor Reese, 19, had been scheduled to begin Oct. 1 in the death of Jackson Attuso, of Clinton, who was killed on a bike and hiking path at The Bluffs on Thompson Creek subdivision on June 10, 2010.

Twentieth Judicial District Judge William G. Carmichael rejected defense attorney Lewis Unglesby’s motion to throw out the indictment, which Unglesby based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a defendant who committed a crime as a juvenile cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

District Attorney Sam D’Aquilla and Assistant Attorney General Colin Clark opposed the motion.

Reese was 16 when the boy was killed. An earlier Supreme Court ruling barred states from executing defendants who committed murder when they were juveniles.

Because the state Legislature has not amended Louisiana’s first- and second-degree murder statutes to allow juvenile defendants the possibility of parole, there is no penalty for the crime to fit Reese’s situation if he were convicted, Unglesby said.

“There’s no such thing as a trial without a punishment,” he said, adding that Carmichael cannot act in place of the Legislature in sentencing Reese to life with the possibility of parole.

Clark said Unglesby always has argued that his clients are “cloaked with the presumption of innocence” at trial, but the defense attorney’s motion turns that “argument on its head.”

The assistant attorney general said in his answer to Unglesby’s motion that the constitutional issue “is not ripe” for litigation and that the Supreme Court decisions restrict only what sentence is applicable under the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

The rulings are about cruel and unusual punishments, not “cruel and unusual convictions,” Clark told the judge.

Unglesby had suggested waiting until the Legislature addresses the latest Supreme Court ruling, at which time he said D’Aquilla could obtain another indictment.

In a separate motion to delay the trial, Unglesby said a Baton Rouge psychologist who has examined Reese will not be available because of medical reasons. Unglesby said the psychologist’s testimony will be vital to his client’s defense.

Reese has pleaded “not guilty by reason of insanity.”

D’Aquilla protested the delay, saying the Oct. 1 trial date had been worked out through consultations with “six doctors” involved in evaluating Reese. The district attorney filed a letter regarding the psychologist’s medical situation into the record, but the judge ordered it sealed.

Carmichael said he was reluctant to delay the trial, noting that subpoenas have gone out to some 200 potential jurors to appear on Oct. 1, but he said he finds that the psychologist is a material witness.

The judge ordered Unglesby and D’Aquilla to consult with the psychiatrists and psychologists expected to testify to determine which of three possible trial dates is best: Jan. 22, Feb. 19 or March 18.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (7)


1) Comment by CountryAttorney - 21/09/2012

And BayouBoy, I would tend to agree with you. But as a defense attorney, I'm not going to deny my clients a defense available by law merely because I don't agree with it. Every accused has the right to effective assistance of counsel AND a presumption of innocence.

2) Comment by CountryAttorney - 21/09/2012

Well someone who is acquitted by reason of insanity isn't just released back into the public. That person is placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Hospitals for an extended period of time. At specified intervals he would be evaluated under very tough standards and would only be released when it can be shown that he poses no risk to himself or the public. On the flip side of that coin, in order to succeed on a plea of insanity, the defendant must meed the McNaughten standard and prove that at the time of the offense he was suffering from a psychological disease or mental defect that prevented him from knowing right from wrong. It is not the same as going crazy because you caught your wife in bed with another man; that would only bring you down from murder to manslaughter. It is a VERY hard standard to meet.

3) Comment by ABayouBoy - 21/09/2012

CountryAttorney, I'm certain that you are "technically" correct. But, like I said in a previous post, it is morally unjust to let someone off due to an insanity plea. I'm sure that the Colorado movie shooter will also get off. Regardless of the letter of the law, I don't believe that the insanity plea is right.

4) Comment by CountryAttorney - 21/09/2012

@ABayouBoy: An insanity plea is not a plea of "I did it, but I was crazy." In order to plea insanity as an affirmative defense, the defendant must enter a plea of BOTH "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity." It is not an admission of any wrongdoing. The state must still prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, while I think the crime committed here is deplorable, I believe that the judge made an incorrect ruling. If Unglesby decides to seek supervisory writs (and I'd be shocked if he didn't) there is at least a fair chance that this ruling will be overturned.

5) Comment by tradewinns - 21/09/2012

time to replace the bleeding hearts on the state supreme court with law and order judges. the legislature needs to act NOW to correct the present situation so some criminal can not get away with murder because of another legal loophole.

6) Comment by tball - 21/09/2012

You're right ABayouBoy, insane my a _ _!!!! Commit the crime pay the time or death!!!

7) Comment by ABayouBoy - 21/09/2012

Reese has pleaded “not guilty by reason of insanity.” So, actually Reese has admitted to the crime, but pleads not guilty because he is insane. How can someone be "presumed innocent" by reason of insanity? Oh wait, he is now sane enough to enter a plea. His insanity was only temporary, which empowered him to commit this terrible crime. The law rules supreme....no justice for the guilty, no consideration for the victims. The land of the free.....I rest my case.