A man charged with killing a Louisiana state trooper and a woman in Prairieville during a multiparish shooting rampage is asking the court to bar the death penalty and rule two Louisiana laws unconstitutional.
Matthew Mire, 34, of Livingston, is accused of ambushing State Master Trooper Adam Gaubert as he sat in his parked patrol vehicle at a Prairieville bank on Oct. 9, 2021. Authorities say Mire then killed Prairieville resident Pamela Adaid, a relative by marriage, and shot her partner at their home.
An Ascension Parish grand jury indicted Mire five days after the shootings on two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, home invasion, attempted armed robbery and other charges. Earlier this year, a judge ruled he was mentally fit to stand trial.
His attorney, Kerry Cuccia, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Investigators say Mire broke into a French Settlement trailer home around midnight Oct. 9 and shot his neighbors before stealing a truck from another residence. He then drove to Ascension Parish, where he shot Gaubert and his relatives.
Police conducted a manhunt that ended after 10 p.m. when they apprehended Mire near Bayou Manchac in East Baton Rouge Parish.
According to the Louisiana Department of Corrections inmate database, Mire is currently held at the Livingston Parish Detention Center.
Motions to bar death penalty
Cuccia filed several motions Oct. 16 asking the court to bar the death penalty, making arguments including that “evolving standards of decency” and a decline in public support for the punishment indicate the state should not be allowed to seek it.
Assistant District Attorney Robin O’Bannon with the 23rd Judicial DA's Office wrote in a Nov. 22 answer that Cuccia didn’t provide a legal basis for his argument and pointed to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s rejection of similar arguments.
In a different motion, Cuccia argued capital punishment is arbitrarily applied in the state and “akin to being struck by lightning,” thereby violating the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
He pointed to U.S. Supreme Court cases determining state legislatures needed to limit the number of crimes eligible for punishment by death to prevent arbitrary capital punishment. And in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court found Louisiana law had narrowed the number of crimes punishable by death via its definition of first-degree murder.
But Cuccia argued the definition of first-degree murder has since expanded “to the point that it no longer adequately narrows the field,” pointing to 13 legislative sessions that expanded the scope.
“Given the broad swath of conduct now encompassed under the capital murder statute … a huge tranche of homicides currently qualify legislatively as capital murder,” he wrote.
In an answer document, O’Bannon said the motion was premature, as Mire has yet to be convicted and sentenced. And she added that the Louisiana Supreme Court has not found the death penalty law to be arbitrary, upholding it in 2021.
Last year, a poll found that 51% of Louisiana voters opposed then-Gov. John Bell Edwards’ effort to spare the lives of prisoners on death row, while 41% supported it. He had previously said capital punishment goes against his “pro-life” beliefs.
Religious objection to death penalty
In an Oct. 16 motion, Cuccia argued a Louisiana law allowing prosecutors to strike a potential juror if they are morally opposed to the death penalty was unconstitutional. According to the law, potential jurors must say they are opposed to it and also fall within certain circumstances, such as stating they would automatically vote against capital punishment.
He argued the law violates the free exercise of religion, as it requires someone with a religious objection to the death penalty to set it aside or be potentially excluded from the jury.
“Even where a gratuitous benefit is at issue, the imposition of a condition to put aside ones sincerely held religious beliefs inevitably deters or discourages the exercise of First Amendment rights,” he added.
And he argued Louisiana law provides broader religious protections than the U.S. Constitution under the state’s “Preservation of Religious Freedom Act,” which passed in 2010.
In her response, O’Bannon pointed to a 2011 Louisiana Supreme Court decision that held the law was constitutionally valid, along with other rejections of the argument by the same court. And she referenced a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which also rejected a similar argument.
“‘Death Qualification’ is constitutional and has consistently been held constitutional,” she wrote. “(The law) is constitutional, and there is no authority under which this Court may bar the State from challenging jurors with conscientious scruples … if those views would prevent or substantially impair him from making an impartial decision in accordance with his instructions and his oath.”
Jury sentencing
Cuccia also argued another state law, which allows the jury to decide in the sentencing phase between the death penalty or life imprisonment, was unconstitutional.
He stated the jury considers aggravating factors in determining the sentence during that phase, and that an accused person should have the right to a trial for those factors as well. By extension, he contended, the jury should be able to acquit someone on aggravating circumstances.
O’Bannon said this argument conflated the jury’s decision of finding someone guilty with its sentencing decision, saying the jury can acquit someone during its guilt deliberations.
“The Capital Sentencing Hearing is only triggered after the jury determines that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed First Degree murder factually during one or more of an aggravating circumstance,” she wrote.