TRAVERS: WE WILL START THIS QUESTION WITH YOU.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS A BIG TOPIC.
ALL DEATH PENALTY CASES ARE APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.
WHAT IS YOUR STANCE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST IT?
MR. CRAIN: I BELIEVE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS AN APPROPRIATE PENALTY.
I BELIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY PROCESS IS BROKEN IN THIS COUNTRY.
WE TAKE UP TO 20 YEARS AT THIS POINT BEFORE A DEATH PENALTY IS IMPLEMENTED.
I CAN GIVE YOU A PERSONAL ANECDOTE ON THAT.
MY GRANDFATHER GREW UP WITHOUT A FATHER.
HE WAS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF IN WASHINGTON PARISH.
THE CHARGE OF CAPITAL MURDER AGAINST THAT PERSON WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS ON APPEAL, CAME BACK, AND AN EXECUTION TOOK PLACE WITHIN A YEAR.
THAT GOES BACK SOMETIMES, AND I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD BE FLIPPANT ABOUT THE WAY WE HANDLE THESE THINGS, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DEATH PENALTY, IT SHOULD BE DONE IN AN
EFFICIENT MANNER, ENSURING THAT ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE PROTECTED, BUT AT SOME POINT THERE SHOULD BE CLOSURE TO THE PROCESS.
TRAVERS: MR. DUCOTE, ONE MINUTE, SAME QUESTION.
WHAT IS YOUR STANCE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
MR. DUCOTE: FIRST OFF, THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES WHETHER THERE IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CONSTITUTIONAL.
BUT OF COURSE, ALL THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE UTILIZED, THE REPRESENTATION OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE EVIDENCE THAT IS ADMITTED, THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS ALL HAS TO BE DONE
CORRECTLY AND COMPETENTLY AND FAIRLY AND JUSTLY.
I DON’T THINK WE CAN RUSH TO PUT PEOPLE TO DEATH FOR EXPEDIENCY’S SAKE BUT, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE IT IS DONE CORRECTLY.
TRAVERS: JUDGE LIJEBERG, SAME QUESTION.
MR. LIJEBERG IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I THINK.
THAT IS ON THE LOUISIANA.
I AM THE ONLY CANDIDATE HERE WHO HAS ACTUALLY HANDLED CAPITAL CASES.
I HAVE HAD TWO CAPITAL CASES.
IN ONE, THE JURY IMPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY.
I IMPOSED A DEATH SENTENCE.
THAT CASE HAS GONE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT THESE GENTLEMEN SAID.
IT IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY’S LIFE AT STAKE.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE TRIAL JUDGE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS TESTED MY COMPETENCE AS A JUDGE AND SAID IN THE MOST SERIOUS OF CASES, THIS GUY DID THE RIGHT THING.
TRAVERS: JUDGE SCHLEGEL, SAME THING.
WHAT IS YOUR STANCE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
MR. SCHLEGEL: AGAIN, AS A JUDGE, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.
APPLY THE LAW AS WRITTEN, NOT AS I WISH IT WAS WRITTEN.
I HAVE HANDLED OVER 1000 CRIMINAL CASES.
I HAVE HANDLED MANY DIFFERENT LIFE SENTENCES AND TRIED A LOT OF MURDERERS AND CHILD RAPISTS.
IT IS OUR JOB TO TRY THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
TRAVERS: THIS IS A BIG TOPIC IN LOUISIANA, ABORTION.
IN YOUR OPINION, IS ABORTION SETTLED LAW?
IF NOT, WHY?
MR. SCHLEGEL: THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS, BUT AS A JUDGE, I CANNOT GO AND TALK AND ESPOUSE THESE ISSUES REGARDING ABORTION AND THE DEATH PENALTY.
AS AN ADVOCATE, WAS WITH THE ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND, SO I APPRECIATE ALL THESE ARGUMENTS VERY WELL.
AS A JUDGE, IT IS MY JOB TO APPLY THAT LAW CONSIDER PRECEDENTS, AND LOOK AT EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY AND MAKE THE BEST DECISION.
TRAVERS: JUDGE LIJEBERG, ONE MINUTE, SAME QUESTION.
IS ABORTION SUB LAW?
-- SETTLED LAW?
MR. LIJEBERG THE GOVERNOR JUST SIGNED A LAW INTO EFFECT WITH ONE OF THE STRICTEST ANTIABORTION LAWS IN THE STATE, SO THAT WILL PROBABLY END UP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT I AM OPEN TO LIFE.
I HAVE SEVEN DAUGHTERS.
I WAS IN LOUISIANA LAWYERS FOR LIFE.
I CANNO OPINE EITHER WAY, BUT I WALK THE WALK.
TRAVERS: IS ABORTION SETTLED LAW IN LOUISIANA, AND IF NOT, WHY?
MR. CRAIN: THE LEGISLATURE JUST -- MR. DUCOTE THE LEGISLATURE JUST PAST THE HEARTBEAT BILL.
IT IS TIED TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT ISSUE BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
I HAVE WRITTEN LAWS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF BABIES.
I AM THE ONLY CANDIDATE HERE WHO HAS DEVOTED THEIR LIFE TO THE PROTECTION OF ABUSED KIDS AND ABUSED WOMEN.
I THINK CLEARLY LIFE IS VERY PRECIOUS.
I HAVE DEVOTED 41 YEARS TO THAT.
TH CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW WILL COME BEFORE US.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT MY BACKGROUND, WHAT I HAVE DONE FOR 41 YEARS, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT I WILL TAKE TO THE BENCH.
TRAVERS: JUDGE CRAIN, SAME QUESTION.
IS ABORTION SETTLED LAW, AND IF NOT, WHY?
MR. CRAI MY MORAL AND MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS REQUIRE THAT I BE PRO-LIFE.
THE OATH THAT I TAKE AS A JUDGE REQUIRES THAT I SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS STATE AND COUNTRY.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT WE CAN REGULATE BUT NOT ELIMINATE ABORTIONS.
THAT IS THE CHALLENGE THAT FALLS UPON US AS JUDGES, TO DETERMINE WHETHER PARTICULAR LEGISLATION IS A REGULATION AS OPPOSED T AN ELIMINATION OF ABORTION.
I WOULD AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, WE CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO IT, BUT THAT IS THE CHALLENGE DIRECTLY BEFORE US.
MY PERSONAL AND PRIVAT BELIEFS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH MY ABILITY TO PERFORM MY OATH AS A JUDGE.
TRAVERS: WE ARE WRAPPING UP HERE.
IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS, IF YOU COULD ANSWER THIS QUESTION, DO YOU SUPPORT TH STATE’S DECISION TO HAVE UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICTS?
YES OR NO?
MR. CRAIN: I DO SUPPORT IT.
I HANDLED A CASE AT THE TRIAL LEVEL THAT I WAS FACED DIRECTLY WITH, AND I CHOSE TO GO WITH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT IN THAT CASE.
I BELIEVE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT IT, AND WE WERE ONLY ONE OF TWO STATES THAT WERE REQUIRING UNANIMOUS VERDICTS.
TRAVERS: MR. DUCOTE, SAME QUESTION.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE STATE’S DECISION TO HAVE UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT?
MR. DUCOTE: YES, SIR.
CONVICTION FOR A CRIME REQUIRES PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT FROM A JURY, IN MY VIEW, THAT BY DEFINITION MEANS THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT.
THINK THE UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED.
TRAVERS: JUDGE LIJEBERG, SAME QUESTION.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE STATE’S DECISION TO HAVE UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICTS?
MR. LIJEBERG THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION, SO I SUPPORT IT.
I DO WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.
MR. SCHLEGEL: I AGREE.
THESE ARE WONDERFUL QUESTIONS AND COMPLETELY RELEVANT, BUT AS JUDGES, IT IS OUR JOB TO APPLY THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES THE LOSS.
THAT HAS BEE PRESENTED TO THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA.
THEY HAVE DECIDE THAT, AND IT IS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AS WELL.
TRAVERS: ELECTION DAY IS OCTOBER 12.
WE WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT.
WE WILL START WITH YOU, JUDGE SCHLEGEL.
YOU HAVE ABOUT 40 SECONDS TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT, WHY YOU FEEL YOU ARE THE BEST CANDIDATE.
MR. SCHLEGEL: I BELIEVE I AM THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT BECAUSE I HAVE A VISION TO REIMAGINE OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
FOR FAR TOO LONG, IT HAS BEEN INEFFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE IN CERTAI AREAS.
AS A CIVIL ATTORNEY, I UNDERSTAND HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET TO THE PROCESS, SO I HAVE INSTITUTED A NUMBER OF PROCESSES, TEXT AND EMAIL REMINDERS, SO WE CAN GET PEOPLE
THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I HAVE DEVELOPED MANY PROGRAMS TO HOLD FOLKS ACCOUNTABLE, BUT ALSO CARE ENOUGH TO WATCH THEM SUCCEED SO THEY HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY AS.
AS THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT CRIME, I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STAGGER DOCKETS TO MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVE.
THAT IS WHAT I WILL BRING.
I APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE.
TRAVERS: IN ABOUT 40 SECONDS, JUDGE LIJEBERG, YOU HAVE THE CHANCE TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT.
MR. LIJEBERG: YOU HEARD US ALL SPEAK AND HURT US ALL SAY ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING -- HEARD US ALL SAY THE SAME THING.
I AM THE ONLY JUDGE THAT SERVED AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FOR 10 YEARS.
YOU PROMOTED ME TO THE APPEALS COURT WHERE I SERVED FOR SEVEN YEARS.
I SERVED ON THE DISTRICT COURT, 10 YEARS TOTAL, NOW SEVEN MORE YEARS AFTER YOU PROMOTED ME.
I AM ASKING YOU AFTER HAVING SERVED 17 YEARS, MORE EXPERIENCE THAN ALL OF THESE GUYS, TO PROMOTE ME TO THE SUPREME COURT.
THIS RACE IS SIMPLE.
IT IS LIKE GOLDILOCKS AND THE THREE BEARS.
I AM NOT THE OLDEST IN THE RACE.
THERE IS ONE GUY SIGNIFICANTLY YOUNGER THAN ME THAT HAS A LOT LESS EXPERIENCE THAN I DO.
I FEEL THAT I AM GOLDILOCKS, JUST RIGHT.
TRAVERS: MR. DUCOTE, YOU HAVE ABOUT 40 SECONDS.
MR. DUCOTE: THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR ME.
FIRST OF ALL, INDEPENDENCE.
NO MONEY BEING FINANCED INTO MY CAMPAIGN BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THESE DECISIONS.
TOTALLY INDEPENDENT.
SECOND, EXPERIENCE.
AS HANS POINTED OUT, I HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
WELL TO MY RIGHT, I HAVE MORE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE COURTROOM AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND HE DOES.
SCOTT WAS EIGHT YEAR OLD WHEN I STARTED PRACTICING LAW -- WAS A YEAR OLD WHEN I STARTED PRACTICING LAW.
I AM THE ONLY CANDIDATE, AND I AM GLAD THEY ARE COMING ALONG NOW, THAT IS DEMANDING OPENNESS IN JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS.
TRAVERS: FINALLY, JUDGE CRAIN.
YOU HAVE 30 OR 40 SECONDS.
MR. CRAIN: I BELIEVE THAT SERVICE ON O STATE’S HIGHEST COURT SHOULD BE THE CULMINATION OF A CAREER OF SUCCESS.
I HAVE SERVED WITH DISTINCTION AT EVERY LEVEL OF OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
THE 300 OPINIONS I HAVE AUTHORED AS A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES CONFIRM MY CORE BELIEF THAT AS JUDGES WE MUST INTERPRET THE LAW, NOT LEGISLATE.
I HAVE BEEN ENDORSED BY BUSINESS AND LABOR.
I AM SUPPORTED BY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GOVERNMENT WATCHDOGS.
I BELIEVE THAT SHOWS THAT I AM THE CANDIDATE WHO PEOPLE HAVE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE TO INTERPRET THE LAW AND I HUMBLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ELECTION.
TRAVERS: WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, LETTING THESE VIEWERS HEAR FROM YOU