## Facts

- Rondall Lucas, Jr. was charged with obscenity after an incident on May 10, 2003, on U.S. Highway 80 in Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
- Shannon Mack testified that a dark blue truck pulled alongside her vehicle and the driver exposed his penis while moving his pelvis up and down and looking at her and smiling.
- Mack reported the incident and recorded the license plate number; Lucas was later identified as the truck’s driver.
- Lucas denied the conduct and proceeded to a jury trial.
- Before testimony began, the trial court placed all witnesses under a sequestration order.
- The court instructed that witnesses could not be in the courtroom during other witnesses’ testimony, could not discuss other witnesses’ testimony with anyone, and could not discuss their own testimony in the presence of other witnesses.
- The defense planned to call four witnesses (Ron Lucas, Sr.; Paula Lucas; April Hider; and Sonny Clary), all of whom were subject to the sequestration order.
- During trial, the State requested a hearing alleging all four defense witnesses violated sequestration.
- A district attorney’s office employee testified she saw the defense witnesses talking and laughing in the hallway and that it appeared they were trying to demonstrate the alleged pelvic motion.
- Each defense witness denied discussing the case or testimony and denied reenacting any motion related to the charged conduct.
- No evidence showed any defense witness had been in the courtroom to see or hear testimony, or that they received information about another witness’s testimony.
- No evidence showed Lucas procured, consented to, or even knew about the hallway interaction.
- After the hearing, the trial court found a sequestration violation and barred all four defense witnesses from testifying.
- The jury found Lucas guilty. He appealed, arguing the blanket exclusion of his witnesses was legal error and denied him a fair opportunity to present a defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding all defense witnesses as a sanction for an alleged sequestration violation when there was no showing the witnesses heard courtroom testimony or discussed testimony.
2. Whether excluding defense witnesses is permissible absent evidence the defendant procured, consented to, or knew of the violation and absent a showing of prejudice to the State.
3. Whether the wholesale exclusion of the defense witnesses, in a case turning largely on the complaining witness’s identification and description, warranted reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed Lucas’s conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court committed legal error by imposing the extreme remedy of excluding all defense witnesses on this record.
- The court found the alleged hallway conduct did not establish that the witnesses were influenced by trial testimony or that the purposes of sequestration were defeated.
- The court also found no basis to attribute the alleged violation to Lucas and no showing that the State was prejudiced in a way that required the exclusion remedy.
- Because the sanction deprived the defense of witness testimony and impaired Lucas’s ability to present his case, reversal was required.

## Legal Principles

- Sequestration is intended to prevent witnesses from shaping testimony based on what they hear in court and to assist the factfinder in evaluating credibility.
- Trial courts have authority to enforce sequestration orders, but enforcement must be balanced against a defendant’s right to present witnesses in his defense.
- Excluding a defense witness for a sequestration violation is an extreme remedy and should be reserved for situations where the violation meaningfully threatens the fairness of the factfinding process.
- In assessing sanctions for an alleged sequestration breach, courts consider whether the witness actually heard or learned other testimony, whether the party calling the witness caused or knowingly allowed the violation, whether the opposing party suffered prejudice, and whether a lesser response would address the problem.
- When a trial court bars defense witnesses without an adequate showing that sequestration’s purposes were defeated, and the exclusion materially limits the defense, the error is not harmless and a new trial is required.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Lucas*, the appellate court reversed because the trial court barred all defense witnesses based on a suspected hallway discussion and gestures, without proof the witnesses heard trial testimony, without proof Lucas caused or knew of any breach, and without a showing that exclusion was necessary to protect a fair trial.


State v. Lucas, 896 So. 2d 331 (2005)