WDSU NEWS HOT SEAT. I’M TRAVERS MACKEL. TONIGHT WE ARE CONTINUING OUR DEBATES FOR COMMITMENT 2024, AND WE’RE FOCUSING ON THE RACE FOR JEFFERSON PARISH JUDGE, DIVISION D. THREE CANDIDATES HAVE QUALIFIED TO RUN. THEY’RE ALL REPUBLICANS. THEY ARE ALL HERE TONIGHT. THEY ARE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. JACKIE MALONEY, JERRY SMITH AND LINDSAY VALENTI, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. WE HAVE A LOT TO GET TO. THIS IS A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE RACE, SO WE’RE GOING TO GO ALPHABETICALLY AND LET YOU ALL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT. MISS MALONEY, WE START WITH YOU. YOU HAVE 60S. THANK YOU TRAVERS. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS JACKIE MALONEY AND I’M A CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE FOR DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION D IN JEFFERSON PARISH. I AM THE MOST EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE IN THIS RACE. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS. THE FIRST 14 YEARS I WAS A PROSECUTOR IN BOTH THE ORLEANS AND JEFFERSON PARISH. DA’S OFFICE. I’VE TRIED MORE THAN 130 FELONY JURY TRIALS AS A PROSECUTOR, INCLUDING MURDERS, RAPES, ROBBERIES, AND DRUG OFFENSES. I TRIED THE LAST CAPITAL CASE THAT WENT TO TRIAL IN JEFFERSON PARISH IN 2012. I LEFT THE DA’S OFFICE AND I OPENED A PRIVATE PRACTICE. AND SINCE THEN, I HAVE TRIED MORE THAN, WELL, HUNDREDS OF CIVIL CASES, CIVIL AND DOMESTIC. THE COURT IN JEFFERSON PARISH IS A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT RUNS FOR THE SEAT AND GETS ELECTED JUDGE WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN ALL THREE AREAS OF LAW. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, I’M A MOUNT CARMEL GRADUATE. I GRADUATED FROM UNO AND TULANE LAW SCHOOL. I’M A MOTHER OF TWO. MY DAUGHTER IS 25, MY SON IS 14, AND I’M A WIDOW. I THANK YOU, MISS MALONEY. THANK YOU. TRAVERS, CONGRATULATIONS ON COMING IN AT UNDER 60S. YOU START US OFF VERY WELL, MR. SMITH. YOU HAVE 60S. GOOD EVENING. TRAVERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US IN MY 23 YEAR CAREER AS AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE PRACTICED IN ALL AREAS OF LAW THAT THAT APPEAR BEFORE THE 24TH JDC PART OF THAT, I WAS A PROSECUTOR FOR 13 YEARS, WHERE I ALSO PROSECUTE LOOTED, UM, RAPES, MURDERS, ROBBERIES, DRUG OFFENSES AND HAD HAVE OVER 100 JURY TRIALS DOING THAT. UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I HAVE SPENT MY ENTIRE LIFE TRYING TO BE DEDICATED TO THE COMMUNITY. I VOLUNTEERED TO TEACH LAW AT TULANE SCHOOL OF LAW AND TRIAL ADVOCACY PROGRAM, TEACHING SECOND AND THIRD YEAR STUDENTS HOW TO UM, PREPARE AND PRESENT THEIR CASES IN THE COURTROOM. PROFESSIONALISM AND IT’S VERY GREAT TO SEE THESE THESE YOUNG LAWYERS LATER IN THE COURTROOM AND SEE SEE THEM DEVELOP AS ATTORNEYS. I ALSO STARTED A HOGS FOR THE CAUSE TEAM WHERE IN OUR 11 YEARS WE’VE RAISED OVER $100,000 FOR CHILDREN WITH PEDIATRIC BRAIN CANCER AND HOGS, HAS BUILT A HOTEL AT CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL FOR FAMILIES TO STAY. UM, I HAVE EXTENSIVE WORK IN THE COMMUNITY AND AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US. NO, THANK YOU, MISS VALENTI. YOU GET TO WRAP US UP. YOU HAVE 60S. THANK YOU. I AM LINDSAY VALENTI AND I AM THIRD GENERATION LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE LAST SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS, IT HAS BEEN MY HONOR TO SERVE AS THE CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF TWO SHERIFF’S SHERIFF NEWELL NORMAND AND SHERIFF JOE LOPINTO, WHO I’M PROUD TO SAY THEY ARE BOTH SUPPORTING ME IN MY FIRST EVER RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. SO WHAT ARE MY QUALIFICATIONS TO BE YOUR JUDGE? WELL, I CAN TELL YOU IT IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF MY OPPONENTS. AS THE CHIEF ATTORNEY, I WAS THE LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE A. $186 MILLION BUSINESS. I MANAGED AS MANY AS 125 CASES AT ANY GIVEN TIME. I HANDLED CONTRACT LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, CIVIL LAW, INSURANCE LAW, GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND MORE. AND I NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO DO. I NEEDED TO BE NIMBLE ENOUGH TO SEAMLESSLY MOVE FROM ONE TOPIC TO THE NEXT. BUT WHAT I AM NOT IS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY. BUT REMEMBER, ONLY 4% OF CASES GO TO TRIAL, AND MY EXPERIENCE IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE 96% OF CASES JUDGES MANAGE EVERY DAY. I APPRECIATE BEING HERE AND I HOPE TO EARN YOUR VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE’RE GOING TO GET TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR EVERYBODY IN A SECOND BEFORE WE DO. MR. SMITH, WE START THIS ONE WITH WITH YOU. YOU ALL HAVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LAWYERS. YOU ALL HAVE PICKED UP NUMEROUS ENDORSEMENTS IN 60S. HOW CAN YOU BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AS A JUDGE? BY TAKING ENDORSEMENTS AND TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ATTORNEYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ASKING THAT, TRAVERS, BECAUSE IN FACT, I HAVE NOT SOUGHT ENDORSEMENTS FROM ANY ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND I THINK IT IS WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES TO HAVE ENDORSEMENTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THAT EXACT REASON. FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR TAX ASSESSMENT, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU TAKE THE TAX ASSESSOR TO COURT AND IF YOU WALK INTO THE COURTROOM NEXT TO THE TAX ASSESSOR AND LOOK UP AT THE JUDGE AND KNOW THAT THE TAX ASSESSOR SUPPORTED THE JUDGE, WHAT CHANCE DO YOU HAVE OF AND YOU DON’T HAVE A CHANCE. AND THAT’S WHY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES TO BE COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AND NOT SEEK POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS FROM OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND I’M JUST PICKING ON THE TAX ASSESSOR. THAT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MISS VALENTI, SAME QUESTION. YOU’VE TAKEN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. YOU ALSO HAVE PICKED UP ENDORSEMENTS LIKE YOUR OPPONENT’S. HOW CAN YOU BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AS A JUDGE BY TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND ENDORSEMENTS IN 60S? SO I THINK THE EXACT NATURE OF BEING A JUDGE IS BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. JUST BECAUSE A LAWYER OR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL ENDORSES A CANDIDATE IN A RACE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT RACE THAT IS, IT’S SIMPLY LENDING CREDIBILITY TO THE PERSON THEY THINK IS MOST QUALIFIED. I AM PROUD TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENTS THAT I’VE EARNED, AND I’M PROUD THAT MY FINANCE TEAM HAS BEEN ABLE TO RUN THE FUNDS THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO GET OUR MESSAGE TO THE VOTERS. ALL RIGHT, SAME QUESTION, MISS MALONEY. I’LL REPEAT IT AS WELL. YOU’VE TAKEN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. YOU’VE ALSO PICKED UP ENDORSEMENTS LIKE YOUR OPPONENT’S. HOW CAN YOU BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? BY PICKING UP ENDORSEMENTS AND TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ATTORNEYS? WELL, LIKE MR. SMITH, I HAVE NOT BEEN ENDORSED BY ANY POLITICIANS IN THIS RACE. I HAVE BEEN ENDORSED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF JEFFERSON PARISH, AS WELL AS THE ALLIANCE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT. BUT I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, AND IT’S HARD TO DO THAT WHEN THE MAJORITY OF YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT COMES FROM THE POLITICIANS WHO MAY HAVE CASES IN FRONT OF YOU. SO. SO I’VE LARGELY FINANCED MY OWN CAMPAIGN. I HAVE NOT HAD THAT MANY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ATTORNEYS, AND I INTEND TO CONTINUE FINANCING MY OWN CAMPAIGN. ALL RIGHT. WE’LL START THIS QUESTION WITH YOU, MISS VALENTI. THIS HAS BEEN A BIG TALKER IN A LOT OF THESE FORUMS RIGHT NOW. EVERYBODY’S BACKGROUND. YOU WERE ALL WELL EDUCATED ATTORNEYS. HOW MANY CRIMINAL, CIVIL, DOMESTIC CASES HAVE YOU HANDLED AND DO YOU THINK THAT MAKES YOU QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR JUDGE AND BE ON THE BENCH? YES. SO IN MY ROLE AS THE JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE CHIEF ATTORNEY, I CAN’T COUNT THE NUMBER OF. TYPES OF CASES THAT HAVE HANDLED. I’VE HANDLED CASES IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE LAW. INCLUDING CRIMINAL CIVIL CONTROL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, IN DOMESTIC AREAS OF LAW AS WELL, IN MY ROLE AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS PART OF MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THESE CASES UNDER THE REIGNS OF PUBLIC MONEY, AND THAT WAS MY MAIN FOCUS. SO FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT I SAVED IN SETTLEMENT AND NOT PUTTING TOWARDS A COSTLY TRIAL WAS A DOLLAR THAT STAYED IN OUR BUDGET FOR THE SHERIFF TO BE ABLE TO PUT MORE OFFICERS ON THE STREET, AND FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE MORE RESOURCES TO KEEP OUR PARISH SAFE. I COULD HAVE TRIED EVERY SINGLE CASE EVER FOUGHT AGAINST THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, BUT MY PRIMARY OBJECTIVE WAS NOT TO RACK UP STATISTICS. IT WAS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTED OUR COMMUNITY, OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, AND OUR TAX DOLLARS. ALL RIGHT. IT’S LIKE A FANTASY FOOTBALL DRAFT. WE’RE GOING TO GO RIGHT BACK DOWN THE LINE HERE, MR. SMITH. SAME QUESTION. HOW MANY CRIMINAL, CIVIL AND DOMESTIC CASES HAVE YOU HANDLED AND WHY DOES THAT MAKE YOU THE BEST CANDIDATE IN YOUR OPINION, FOR THIS POSITION? SO IN MY CAREER AS A PROSECUTOR, AS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, I, I PROSECUTED LITERALLY OVER 10,000 CASES IN THAT TIME. I TRIED OVER 100 JURY TRIALS. AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE 24TH GDC IS A TRIAL COURT. THAT IS WHERE TRIALS HAPPEN, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE TRIAL EXPERIENCE. UM, I HAVE ALSO HANDLED HUNDREDS OF CIVIL AND DOMESTIC CASES, BUT TO GET BACK TO THE POINT THAT IT IS A TRIAL COURT, EVERYTHING ELSE, THOSE OTHER 96%, THE JUDGE HAS TIME TO REFLECT AND TO READ BRIEFS. BUT WHEN YOU ARE IN TRIAL AND AN ATTORNEY STANDS UP AND SAYS, OBJECTION, IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CODE OF EVIDENCE AND THE CODE OF PROCEDURE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE RIGHT CALL IMMEDIATELY AND MAKING THE WRONG CALL CAN COST UNTOLD AMOUNTS OF MONEY AND TIME FOR THE LITIGANTS. WHEN CASES GET REVERSED, BECAUSE YOU MADE THE WRONG CALL. WHEN SOMEBODY SAID OBJECTION. ALL RIGHT, MISS MALONEY, SAME QUESTION TO YOU HOW MANY CRIMINAL, CIVIL AND DOMESTIC CASES HAVE YOU HANDLED AND WHY DOES THAT EXPERIENCE, IN YOUR OPINION, MAKE YOU THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THIS POSITION? SO LIKE TRAVIS, LIKE I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, I AM THE MOST EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE IN THIS RACE. I’VE TRIED THE MOST CASES, THE MOST JURY TRIALS, ALMOST 140. I’VE TRIED HUNDREDS OF CIVIL CASES, NOT JUST IN JEFFERSON PARISH, BUT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SOUTHEAST REGION. AND I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT MISS VALENTI SAID A FEW SECONDS AGO IN HER OPENING THAT ONLY 4% OF CASES GO TO TRIAL. UH, THAT IS CRIMINAL CASES. AND THE CASES THAT ARE GOING TO TRIAL ARE THE MOST SERIOUS CASES THAT THIS PARISH SEES. THE MURDERS, THE RAPES, THE ROBBERIES. AND IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A JUDGE WHO KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE THOSE CASES AND CAN MAKE RULINGS ON THE SPOT. I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT MISS VALENTI HAS TRIED ZERO CASES. SHE HAS TRIED NO JUDGE TRIALS. SHE HAS TRIED NO JURY TRIALS. SHE HAS TRIED NO CIVIL TRIALS AND NO CRIMINAL TRIALS. HER VERY FIRST TRIAL WILL BE AS A JUDGE IF SHE’S ELECTED. AND I THINK THAT THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW. TRIAL EXPERIENCE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT REALLY QUICKLY. DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? SINCE SHE DIDN’T MENTION YOU BY NAME, MISS VALENTI? YES. I MEAN, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE ASSERTION JUST MADE ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE IS FALSE. I HAVE BENCH TRIAL EXPERIENCE. I HAVE COURTROOM EXPERIENCE. I HAVE ARGUED MOTIONS, I’VE TRAVERSED WITNESSES, I’VE FILED BRIEFS I’VE OFFERED AND FILED EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. I KNOW THE CODE OF EVIDENCE. I KNOW THE CODE OF PROCEDURE, AND I AM FULLY PREPARED TO BE A JUDGE THAT RESPONDS PROMPTLY AND IN THE MOMENT WHEN THAT WHEN THAT IS NECESSARY. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT EXPERIENCE PROBABLY THE WHOLE TIME HERE, BUT WE DO HAVE TO GET SOME OTHER QUESTIONS HERE RIGHT NOW. TALK ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. WE’LL START THIS WITH YOU, MR. SMITH. WE ALL LIVE IN A NEW WORLD AFTER COVID 19. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POLICY IN 60S FOR BRINGING NEW TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURT? SOME PEOPLE SAY THINGS IN JEFFERSON PARISH ARE A BIT ARCHAIC. IF YOU ARE ELECTED AS A JUDGE IN 60S. SO YOU’RE RIGHT, TRAVERS. COVID USHERED IN A NEW AGE OF PEOPLE, APPEARING VIA ZOOM, AND THAT HAS GONE INTO THE COURTS AND ACTUALLY THE JUDGE WHO WE WOULD BE REPLACING IN DIVISION D IS THE TECHNOLOGY GURU FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. HE’S BEEN ON THE COVER OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL FOR HIS TECHNOLOGICAL EFFORTS. UM, BUT I THINK I THINK HAVING THINGS LIKE ZOOM ARE FANTASTIC FOR HEARINGS WHERE YOU’RE NOT TAKING TESTIMONY, WHERE YOU’RE JUST DOING PROCEDURAL THINGS AND PEOPLE CAN APPEAR AND DON’T HAVE TO WASTE TIME WAITING IN A COURTROOM. AND HAVING PARTIES PAY THEIR ATTORNEYS TO SIT THERE AND WAIT. BUT THERE’S NEVER GOING TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR IN-PERSON, LIVE TESTIMONY. IF YOU’RE DOING THINGS LIKE HAVING A TRIAL AND YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS AND BODY LANGUAGE IS SO MUCH A PART OF THAT, THAT IS LOST ON TECHNOLOGY. ANOTHER THING THAT IS GOING TO BE OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE GOING FORWARD IS THE USE OF AI, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. I ACTUALLY TRIED A CASE RECENTLY WHERE I CLONED THE JUDGE’S VOICE AND TO PROVE MY POINT THAT THAT TODAY, UNLESS YOU’RE SEEING IT IN PERSON, YOU DON’T KNOW 100% THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. YEAH. MISS MALONEY, SAME QUESTION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO FACE THEIR ACCUSER. YES, THEY DO IN COURTS ACROSS AMERICA, INCLUDING IN JEFFERSON PARISH IN 60S. IF YOU ARE ELECTED, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR HAVING THE MOST CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGY IN YOUR COURTROOM IN JEFFERSON PARISH? WELL, I HAVE TO SAY, I DON’T KNOW THAT I NECESSARILY AGREE THAT THE JEFFERSON PARISH IS ARCHAIC AND TECHNOLOGY. I THINK WE’RE ACTUALLY QUITE ADVANCED IT. I’VE TRIED MANY CASES VIA ZOOM OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CASES THAT CAN BE TRIED VIA ZOOM BOND HEARINGS. I THINK MR. SMITH ACTUALLY WAS CORRECT THAT CASES WITHOUT WITNESSES CAN BE TRIED VIA ZOOM, BUT THERE’S SO MANY CASES WHERE YOU NEED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE WITNESSES COME TO COURT AND ACTUALLY BE LIVE AND IN PERSON. MAYBE I’M A LITTLE OLD FASHIONED THAT WAY, BUT IT’S DIFFICULT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THROUGH ZOOM, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A TON OF DOCUMENTS OR YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE, VIDEOS AND EVIDENCE OF CRIMES. THOSE CASES NEED TO BE TRIED, LIVE AND IN PERSON. ALL RIGHT. SAME QUESTION FOR YOU, MISS VALENTI. IF YOU ARE ELECTED IN 60S, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGY IN THE JEFFERSON PARISH COURTROOM? SO I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT TO EVOLVE AS TECHNOLOGY DOES. I THINK THE 24TH GDC DOES A GOOD JOB AT THAT. I THINK THAT IT FOR LESS PRESSING ISSUES. I WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN FAVOR OF ZOOM CONFERENCES OR PHONE CONFERENCES TO EXPEDITE THOSE ISSUES THAT CAN BE HANDLED AND THEN WOULD BE FURTHER REMOVED FROM THAT DOCKET OR THAT CASE. BUT I DO THINK ALSO THERE NEEDS TO BE A HYBRID APPROACH. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR IN-PERSON APPEARANCES, FOR COMPLEX MATTERS, FOR TRIALS, MOTION HEARINGS, OR WHEN LIVE TESTIMONY IS TAKEN. LET ME JUST ASK YOU THIS REALLY QUICKLY. IT’S A YES OR NO BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH OUR FIELD, BUT IT ALSO DEALS WITH THE PUBLIC. YES OR NO? WOULD YOU SUPPORT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, INCLUDING JEFFERSON PARISH, MR. SMITH? WELL, NO, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT DOESN’T ALLOW IT. BUT IF BUT SHOULD THEY ALLOW IT? THAT’S THE QUESTION. YES OR NO? SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED HERE? WE’RE LIKE ONE OF LIKE SIX STATES. NOW THAT DOESN’T ALLOW IT. WELL, I CAN’T SAY YES OR NO TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT ALWAYS JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE COMES WITH ITS PROS AND CONS. I MEAN, PROS ARE THAT IT DOES OPEN UP THE COURTROOM TO THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT’S GOING ON THERE. BUT THE CON IS, IS DO PEOPLE ACT DIFFERENTLY WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC IS WATCHING? PROBABLY SO. YES OR NO? MISS MALONEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM AS A POSSIBLE JUDGE HERE IN THE FUTURE? I THINK IT’S ALWAYS GREAT TO SHINE A LIGHT ON WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE COURT SYSTEM. I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. MISS VALENTI. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THAT IT’S AN INTERESTING QUESTION. CERTAINLY CAMERAS CAN BRING TRANSPARENCY TO THE COURT PROCESS, BUT YOU HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH PRODUCTIVITY. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING CAMERAS, IT COULD BE DISTRACTING OR INTIMIDATING TO VICTIMS OR WITNESSES. AND, YOU KNOW, COULD LEAD TO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. I THINK IT’S LIKE I SAID, AN INTERESTING QUESTION. AND ONE THAT I WOULD BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING AND RESEARCHING. ALL RIGHT. I HATE TO DO THIS TO YOU ALL. WE MAY GO TO 30S BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS. AND THIS ONE IS FOR YOU, MISS MALONEY. WHAT WOULD YOUR WHAT WOULD YOUR DOCKET AND SCHEDULE LOOK LIKE? BASICALLY HOW MANY HOURS OF A DAY WOULD YOU WORK AND HOW MANY DAYS A WEEK IF YOU WOULD BE ELECTED TO THIS POSITION IN 30S? OH, I WOULD WORK EVERY DAY. I DO THAT NOW. I GET TO WORK EVERY DAY AT BETWEEN 8:00 AND 830, AND I WORK TILL 4 OR 430. I WOULD INTEND TO CONTINUE DOING THAT. MY DOCKET WOULD BE ONE WEEK CIVIL, ONE WEEK CRIMINAL, AND I WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO HOW MANY CASES WERE SET EACH DAY TO MAKE SURE WE CAN GIVE ATTENTION TO EACH CASE THAT’S ON THE DOCKET, MAKE SURE WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IN CIVIL CASES, PARTICULARLY WHERE PEOPLE ARE PAYING THEIR LAWYERS TO BE THERE, THAT THEY’RE NOT GETTING BUMPED FROM DAY TO DAY. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE EFFICIENT. ALL RIGHT. IN 30S, MR. SMITH, WHAT WOULD YOUR DAY LOOK LIKE? HOW WOULD YOUR DOCKET LOOK AND HOW MANY HOURS OF A DAY WOULD YOU WORK? THIS IS A FULL TIME JOB. IT IS A JOB WHERE YOU GO TO WORK IN THE MORNING AT 830, AND YOU LEAVE IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE CLOSES AT 430 EVERY DAY AS FAR AS SCHEDULING CRIMINAL AND CIVIL OR DIFFERENT CRIMINAL, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE PREDICTABILITY AS FAR AS THIS WEEK IS GOING TO BE CRIMINAL, BECAUSE THE PROSECUTORS HAVE A LOT OF CASES, THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE A LOT OF CASES, AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO PREPARE FOR THOSE IN ADVANCE. ON CIVIL CASES. I WOULD HANDLE IT DIFFERENTLY, AND I’D BE THERE FOR THE WILL OF THE PARTIES. I MEAN, YOU ARE THERE TO RULE ON THINGS WHEN THEY DISAGREE, BUT YOU NEED TO BE THERE WHEN THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD. SAME QUESTION, MISS VALENTI IN 30S. WHAT WOULD YOUR DAY LOOK LIKE? WHAT WOULD YOUR DOCKET LOOK LIKE IN 30S IF YOU WERE ELECTED? SO I AGREE THIS IS A FULL TIME JOB. I WOULD GET THERE IN EARLY IN THE MORNING AND I WOULD WORK UNTIL THE CASES WERE COMPLETED OR UNTIL THE ISSUES WERE RESOLVED FOR THAT DAY, WHETHER THAT’S 430 OR 5 30 OR 630, I WOULD PUT IN THE TIME THAT WAS NECESSARY TO GET THE CASES RESOLVED. BECAUSE I THINK THAT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. I THINK THAT MOST COURTS, THEY DO CIVIL, ONE WEEK CRIMINAL ON THE OTHER. I WOULD PROBABLY STICK WITH THAT. BUT I DO THINK IT’S NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST THAT. IF A CRIMINAL MATTER CAME UP ON A CIVIL WEEK THAT YOU ACCOMMODATE THAT AND VICE VERSA. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS. I’M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU ALL ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY, BECAUSE A LOT IS GOING ON IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW. WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON NITROUS GAS OR THE ELECTRIC CHAIR, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CANNOT ANSWER THAT. BUT PER JUDICIAL CANDIDATES. BUT A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE COULD COME BEFORE YOU ALL. YOU HAVE TO SELECT A JURY IN A DIFFERENT WAY. HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT PICKING A JURY IF YOU WERE A JUDGE, IF YOU HAD TO HANDLE A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE IN YOUR COURTROOM? SO HAVING PROSECUTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES BEFORE, I’M VERY WELL AWARE OF HOW THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS IS DIFFERENT. UM, YOU WOULD YOU HANDLE IT THE WAY THE COURTS, THE HIGHER COURTS, HAVE. LAID OUT THAT YOU NEED TO HANDLE IT? THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH LITIGATION ON THE DEATH PENALTY THAT THAT THE COURTS REALLY HAVE WEIGHED IN AND SAYING THIS IS APPROPRIATE, THIS IS NOT. AND AND HAVING THAT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING SELECTED JURIES IN FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES BEFORE IS, IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. MISS VALENTI, IN 30S, HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE PICKING A JURY FOR A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE? AS A LOT GOES INTO THAT, BECAUSE DEATH WOULD BE ON THE TABLE IN LOUISIANA, FOR SURE. I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK THE 24TH JDC DOES A GOOD JOB IN THE WAY THAT THEY HANDLE THIS. THEY, THE JUDGES AND THE COURTS WORK WITH THE CLERK. UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD FOLLOW THE LEAD THAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE TO INCLUDE PRE-SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRES, ONE ON ONE QUESTIONING WHATEVER WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY WAS IMPANELED. ALL RIGHT, MISS MALONEY, SAME QUESTION IN 30S. HOW WOULD YOU WORK TO PICK A JURY FOR A FIRST DEGREE CASE? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY DEATH WOULD BE AN OPTION IN JEFFERSON PARISH. SO, LIKE I SAID IN MY OPENING, I TRIED THE LAST DEATH PENALTY CASE IN JEFFERSON PARISH, AND IT’S A BIFURCATED PROCESS, WHICH MEANS TWO PARTS. YOU FIRST HAVE TO DEATH QUALIFY THE JURY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER THE DEATH PENALTY. AND THEN YOU ASK THEM ABOUT YOU KNOW, THEIR THEIR OPINIONS ON DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT MAY COME UP IN YOUR CASE. SO THERE’S A VERY SPECIFIC PROCESS. I’VE DONE IT. I’M THE LAST PERSON THAT DID IT. AND I BELIEVE I’M THE ONLY PERSON HERE THAT HAS TRIED A DEATH PENALTY CASE IN JEFFERSON PARISH. SO I’M WELL FAMILIAR WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. UM, NEITHER ONE OF YOU ALL OBJECTED WITH THAT, SO WE’LL JUST MOVE ON HERE. I WISH WE COULD GO FOR MORE QUESTIONS. WE ARE HITTING OUR MARK, THOUGH. HERE WE’RE GOING TO LET YOU ALL WRAP UP. I TOLD YOU YOU WOULD HAVE 60S. WE’RE TIGHT ON TIME. WE’RE GOING TO GIVE YOU 30S TO MAKE A CLOSE. WE’LL START REVERSE ALPHABETICAL. SO WE’LL START WITH YOU, MISS VALENTI. YOU GET A CHANCE TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. WHY? YOU FEEL YOU’RE THE BEST CANDIDATE IN 30S. YES. THE UNIQUE EXPERIENCE THAT I BRING TO THE BENCH IS WELL-ROUNDED, AND IT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE 96% OF CASES THAT JUDGES MANAGE EVERY DAY. MY OPPONENTS TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE CASES THEY PROSECUTED A DECADE AGO, BUT WHAT THEY DIDN’T MENTION WAS THAT SINCE THEN, THEY HAVE DEFENDED VIOLENT CRIMINALS. I AM THIRD GENERATION LAW ENFORCEMENT. THERE WOULD BE NO ONE MORE TOUGH ON CRIME THAN ME. I AM NOT RUNNING TO BE CHIEF PROSECUTOR. I AM RUNNING TO BE YOUR FAIR, IMPARTIAL JUDGE THAT UPHOLDS THE RULE OF LAW AND DELIVERS JUSTICE. I WAS PROUD TO SERVE THE JPSO AND I WOULD BE PROUD TO SERVE YOU AS JUDGE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS VALENTI. MR. SMITH, YOU HAVE 30S TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHY YOU FEEL YOU’RE THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THIS IN THIS RACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, AS I SAID IN MY OPENING, I HAVE PROSECUTED EVERY TYPE OF CASE. I HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN EVERY TYPE OF CASE THAT COMES BEFORE THE 24TH JDC. UM, MY OPPONENT SAYS THAT SHE IS THE MOST EXPERIENCED PERSON. THAT’S A MADE UP STATEMENT THAT YOU JUST SAY TO TO SOUND LIKE YOU’RE VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE VERY SIMILAR EXPERIENCE IN A LOT OF REGARDS. UM, I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY ENDORSEMENTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS. I HAVE GOTTEN THE THE NEW ORLEANS BAR ASSOCIATION DID A POLL OF ALL PRACTICING ATTORNEYS IN THE IN THE BAR WHO VOTED ME OVERWHELMINGLY AS THE NUMBER ONE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE. ADDITIONALLY, AN INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC KHERSON GROUP HAS ENDORSED ME AS WELL. UM, I AM READY TO DO THIS JOB AND I AM OFFERING MY SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC TO DO THIS JOB. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. MISS MALONEY, SINCE HE DID BRING UP A STATEMENT, WE’RE GOING TO FINISH ON YOU ANYWAY SO YOU CAN RESPOND AND WRAP US UP IN 30S WHY YOU FEEL YOU’RE THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THIS JOB. THANK YOU. TRAVERS. I AM THE MOST EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE IN THIS RACE. JUST TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN IDEA OF THE TYPE OF EXPERIENCE THAT ALL THREE CANDIDATES HAVE SINCE 2018, MR. SMITH HAS FILED SEVEN CIVIL CASES IN JEFFERSON PARISH. MISS VALENTI HAS FILED NONE, AND I HAVE FILED ALMOST 140 CIVIL CASES, WHICH I’VE LITIGATED EXTENSIVELY. I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AND TO ELECT SOMEONE WHO IS READY TO TAKE THE BENCH, WHO HAS ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, NOT JUST, UH, COMING TO THIS FORM OR ANY OTHER FORM AND SAYING THAT THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED. BUT TRUE EXPERIENCE IN THE COURTROOM. AND I INVITE THE PUBLIC TO ASK ANY POLICE OFFICER, ANY ATTORNEY, ANYBODY THAT THEY KNOW WHO KNOWS THE THREE OF US AND TO TO ASK THEM WHAT THEIR OPINION IS. THERE IS NO QUESTION. THAT I’VE TRIED THE MOST CASES. I’VE TRIED HUNDREDS OF CIVIL CASES IN ALMOST 140 FELONY JURY TRIALS. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR VOTE. ALL RIGHT. JACKIE MALONEY, JERRY SMITH, LINDSAY VALENTI, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YOU CAN WATCH THIS ENTIRE