Thu, Jan 24, 2013
The motions were two of six filed Wednesday by Mark Anthony Broussard, 57.
Broussard is being held at the Calcasieu Correctional Center on $3.42 million bond.
The motion to suppress his statement was on Wednesday’s docket, but both sides met for a pretrial conference at which the dates were set.
The state must reply to all six motions by March 1, and the defense must reply by March 22. A hearing on the motions is set for April 10.
Broussard had a trial date of Feb. 4, but that has been reset for Sept. 16.
Prosecutor Cynthia Killingsworth and defense attorney Tom Lorenzi said they were prepared to argue the motion to suppress Tuesday, but that it made more sense to put responses in writing and set a later date for the hearings.
Broussard is charged with two counts of aggravated rape, three counts of molestation of a juvenile, two counts of aggravated oral sexual battery, two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of sexual battery.
He was originally charged with 224 counts of child sexual abuse, but those were combined into the 10 counts.
He is accused of sexually abusing three boys between 1986 and 1991 while a priest at Our Lady Queen of Heaven and St. Henry Catholic Church.
In addition to the motion to suppress and the motion to reduce bond, Lorenzi filed motions for production of exculpatory and impeachment evidence; to declare majority verdicts unconstitutional; for a bill of particulars; and to quash some of the charges because the time limit for prosecution has expired.
Louisiana law says that sex crimes have a prosecution time limit of 30 years after victims turn 18. But the motion states that at the time of the alleged offenses, prosecution had to be begun within four years of the victim’s 17th birthday.
The request to suppress statement revolves around a March 22 videotaped interview with Broussard conducted by the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office in Lafayette, according to the motion.
Ten minutes and 30 seconds into the one-hour, 19-minute interview, Broussard says, “I really would like, I mean, I think I want a lawyer. Because, I mean, this is not right,” the motion states.
The motions claims “detectives disregarded the right to counsel.”