Louisiana Supreme Court Stays Liz Murrill's 16-Count Indictment Over Grand Jury Defects
Updated
Updated · WDSU New Orleans · Jul 3
Louisiana Supreme Court Stays Liz Murrill's 16-Count Indictment Over Grand Jury Defects
3 articles · Updated · WDSU New Orleans · Jul 3
Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court halted Attorney General Liz Murrill’s indictment, saying she made a compelling case that the grand jury process and trial court handling had “disturbing defects.”
The stay pauses a case filed Thursday by an Orleans Parish grand jury, which charged Murrill with eight counts of public intimidation and eight of malfeasance tied to letters she sent parish officials.
Bond had been set at $25,000 per count, or $400,000 total, after jurors returned a true bill based on evidence presented by special prosecutor Laurie White.
Murrill said she will seek dismissal and called the prosecution political retaliation, while Governor Jeff Landry said he would pardon her as soon as legally possible and ordered a State Police probe into alleged grand jury improprieties.
The case grew out of a fight over legislation merging Orleans Parish courts, after Murrill warned local officials that moves to install an interim clerk could violate Louisiana usurper laws.
What procedural flaws prompted the Supreme Court to halt the case against the state's Attorney General?
Why did a state law abolish an office won by a man exonerated after nearly 30 years in prison?
Indictment of Louisiana AG Liz Murrill: Supreme Court Halts 16 Felony Charges Amid State-City Power Struggle and Grand Jury Turmoil
Overview
On July 2, 2026, Attorney General Liz Murrill was indicted, prompting her to file an emergency request with the Louisiana Supreme Court to review or halt the proceedings. In a swift and unusual move, the Supreme Court intervened the next morning, highlighting the extraordinary nature of the case. This rapid judicial response followed Murrill’s public statement and underscored the seriousness of indicting the state’s chief legal officer. The court’s action signaled major legal and political stakes, as it paused the indictment process and brought attention to concerns about transparency and due process in high-profile cases.