Stephen Hébert started his private practice in July 2010, representing clients in criminal and civil matters across Louisiana.  Stephen’s work has been previously recognized by New Orleans Magazine, naming Stephen a Top Lawyer in criminal defense in 2012 and personal injury litigation in 2013. This year, New Orleans Magazine is once again recognizing Stephen’s outstanding work in criminal defense, naming him a Top Lawyer in criminal defense for the second time.  Click here to review the full list.


People should never drink and drive.  Nonetheless, please be especially sure to rely on a designated driver or cab service if you plan to be out on the town tonight in New Orleans.


On Thursday, August 14, 2014, the New Orleans Police Department will conduct a sobriety checkpoint, in Orleans Parish on Thursday, August 14, 2014, beginning at approximately 9:00 p.m. and will conclude at approximately 5:00 a.m.  Motorists will experience minimal delays and should have the proper documentation available if requested, i.e., proof of insurance, driver’s license, etc.

In an article recently published by the New Orleans Edition of Attorney at Law Magazine, Criminal Defense Lawyer Stephen Hébert weighs in on marijuana reform in Louisiana.  The full article, Tough on Crime or Smart on Crime?, can be read here.


In the latest issue of the Greater New Orleans Edition of Attorney at Law Magazine, Todd Knight wrote an interesting piece concerning the personal background and practice of criminal defense attorney Stephen Hébert.



Read the article here.


Stephen D. Hébert has been named by New Orleans Magazine as one of New Orleans' top lawyers in personal injury litigation for 2013.


Read the full story here at myneworleans.com.


State of Louisiana v. Darryl Tate, Supreme Court of Louisiana, Docket No. 2012-OK-2763


In this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed whether Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. __ (2012) applied retroactively in state collateral proceedings. Darryl Tate was a juvenile convicted of second degree murder, and, as such, was sentenced to mandatory life without the possibility of parole. His conviction became final in 1984. But, in light of Miller v. Alabama, Tate filed a motion seeking re-sentencing.


The trial court denied his motion. However, the court of appeal granted writs, remanding the matter for a sentencing hearing. The Louisiana Supreme Court then granted writs to address the retroactivity of Miller to those juvenile homicide convictions final at the time Miller was rendered. Upon review, the Louisiana Supreme Court found Miller did not apply retroactively in cases on collateral review as it merely set forth a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure, which is neither substantive nor implicative of the fundamental fairness and accuracy of criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the court of appeal and reinstated the ruling of the trial court.


Attorney at Law Magazine just published an article written by Stephen Hébert, concerning expunging a misdemeanor conviction under Louisiana law.  The article, Expunging the Misdemeanor Conviction: No Article 894? No Problem, discusses expungement procedures both with and without an Article 894 deferral.  Click here to read the full article.


State of Louisiana v. Anthony Thomas, Supreme Court of Louisiana, Docket No. 2012-KP-1410

At a jury trial for the offense of aggravated burglary, Anthony Thomas was convicted of the responsive verdict of attempted aggravated burglary. Thereafter, the State of Louisiana filed a multiple offender bill and Thomas was adjudicated to be third offender, thereby requiring a mandatory life sentence. However, this conviction was later reversed due to the prosecutor's indirect reference to Thomas' failure to testify. In 2002, the matter was re-tried. Thomas waived the jury and was convicted by the court of the responsive verdict of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. The State, once again, filed a multiple offender bill; and, as a result, Thomas was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence.


After Thomas exhausted his direct appeals, he filed an application for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and/or double jeopardy. More particularly, Thomas argued that, since the jury in the first trial found him guilty of only a responsive verdict of attempted aggravated burglary, he was effectively acquitted on the aggravated burglary charge and should not have been tried for second time for the same offense. As such, Thomas argued that his counsel should have filed a motion to quash prior to the commencement of the second trial. The trial court granted the Thomas' application and the State sought appellate review. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed.


While the Louisiana Supreme Court found that trial counsel's performance fell below the objective standard, the court also found no prejudice because Thomas was ultimately convicted of an offense that was not barred by double jeopardy. Therefore, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that Thomas did not satisfy the "Strickland" standard and that it was in error to grant Thomas post-conviction relief.



United States v. José Garza, United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 12-40530

After an officer noticed that José Garza's truck matched a description given over dispatch, the officer stopped Garza in a tiny border town called Fronton, Texas (only 5 miles from the Rio Grande and the U.S.-Mexico border) when Garza tried to leave a gas station. This stop would lead to an alleged consensual search, which revealed undocumented aliens in the truck's flatbed.


Garza subsequently pled to trafficking aliens for financial gain, but he reserved the right to appeal his motion to suppress the search of his vehicle that resulted from the officer's Terry stop.


Although the information that lead to Garza's arrest was based on a CI, the Fifth Circuit never addressed the issue. Rather, the court relied on Brignoni-Ponce factors, concluding that the officer had enough information to support an inference of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.


In border cases, like in all Terry cases, there must be "specific articulable facts" that form the basis for reasonable suspicion, not just a hunch.


While the Brignoni-Ponce case mentions eight factors, the Garza court notes that in considering the totality of circumstances of a near-border stop, it need only find a couple of the factors weighing in favor of the stop, not all.


The Fifth Circuit placed considerable importance on these factors:


1. The characteristics of the area. Fronton was known to have a high frequency of illegal drug and human trafficking activity.


2. Agent experience. The border agent had more than two years' experience in the Fronton area and knew the kind of traffic that passed through.


3. Proximity to the border. The gas station was only 5 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border; citing case precedent, the Fifth Circuit explained that "Anything less than 50 miles ... implicates the proximity factor."


4. The vehicle's appearance. Plywood boards are often used to hide illegal cargo and can be a sign of possible trafficking.


5. The driver's appearance. When the agent approached in his vehicle, Garza nervously finished pumping his gas and quickly moved into his vehicle, giving the agent reason to suspect his nervous evasive behavior."


Taken together, without mention of the CI's tip, the Garza court concluded there was reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.


The Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory has awarded attorney Stephen Hébert the peer review legal rating of AV-Preeminent (4.9 out of 5.0). Martindale-Hubbell peer review ratings are an objective indicator of a lawyer's high ethical standards and professional ability, generated from evaluations of lawyers by other members of the bar and the judiciary.


LexisNexis facilitates secure online Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings surveys of lawyers across multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, in similar areas of practice as the lawyer being rated. Reviewers are asked to assess their colleagues' general ethical standards and legal ability in a specific area of practice. The ratings appear in all formats of the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, in the online listings on martindale.com, Lawyers.com, on the LexisNexis services, on LexisNexis mobile apps.


Martindale-Hubbell peer review ratings reflect a combination of achieving a very high general ethical standards rating and a legal ability numerical rating. A threshold number of responses is required to achieve a rating.


The general ethical standards rating denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities. Those lawyers who meet the "very high" criteria of general ethical standards can proceed to the next step in the ratings process - legal ability.


Legal ability ratings are based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). These areas are:

• Legal Knowledge - Lawyer's familiarity with the laws governing his/her specific area of practice(s)

• Analytical Capabilities - Lawyer's creativity in analyzing legal issues and applying technical knowledge

• Judgment - Lawyer's demonstration of the salient factors that drive the outcome of a given case or issue

• Communication Ability - Lawyer's capability to communicate persuasively and credibly

• Legal Experience - Lawyer's degree of experience in his/her specific area of practice(s)

The numeric ratings range may coincide with the appropriate Certification Mark:

• AV Preeminent (4.5-5.0) - AV Preeminent is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.

• BV Distinguished (3.0-4.4) - BV Distinguished is an excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. A widely respected mark of achievement, it differentiates a lawyer from his or her competition.

• Rated (1.0-2.9) - The Peer Review Rated designation demonstrates that the lawyer has met the very high criteria of General Ethical Standing.



Copyright © Stephen D. Hebert, LLC | 700 Camp Street, Suite 216, New Orleans, LA 70130 | Disclaimer