A Rapides Parish judge ruled late Monday afternoon that a petition filed by the police grand jury foreman against an individual juror accused of threatening and harassing other jurors and parish employees contained enough specific information to proceed with the case.
Juror Jay Scott’s attorney, Thomas Davenport, had filed a motion arguing that the allegations in President Joe Bishop’s March lawsuit were too vague for him to mount any kind of defense.
Bishop’s motion was supported by the other seven jurors, who filed affirmative defenses accusing Scott of threatening jurors in public and in front of parish staff and using “indecent, disgusting vulgarities” toward jurors.
He allegedly also used his criminal record to threaten others, the petition states.
Scott was also accused of sharing explicit photographs and videos of a church employee with whom he allegedly had an affair to another employee while she was on her lunch break at a local restaurant.
After hearing both sides, 9th District Court Judge Mary Lauve Doggett denied Davenport’s motion. He immediately filed a notice stating that he intended to appeal the decision to the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Lake Charles.
He had argued during the hearing, which did not begin until after 5 p.m., that the petition contained “baseless allegations” and opinions, but nothing to suggest that Scott had violated any policies. He said no reasonable person could read the petition and know what Scott had done.
Davenport also said that one person might find vile language perfectly acceptable to another. He also questioned how Scott allegedly threatened anyone, asking if he pulled out a gun or a machete.
“What threats? What kind of threats are these?” he asked, adding that Scott was being sued for using foul language.
Alleged threats and harassment: Rapides Police Chief Seeks Temporary Restraining Order Against Juror Jay Scott
Lawyer: Request for a temporary restraining order against Jay Scott is an attempt to “intimidate and silence” him
When discussing the allegedly explicit photos and videos Scott allegedly shared with a council employee, Davenport named the woman who appeared in the images and said she sent the images to Scott on her own initiative. He added that he does not understand why people share intimate material, but acknowledged that some do.
“What does that have to do with Mr. Bishop?” he asked.
There is nothing that can be done about Scott’s “ancient criminal record,” Davenport said.
“People can talk about their beliefs,” he said. “That’s who they are.”
He called Scott a “champion” who shows young people that they can make mistakes and still lead productive lives. Scott, who was sitting next to Davenport, nodded his head.
But attorney Joshua Dara Jr., who represents Bishop, said the purpose of the petition is clear: to return to a workplace free of harassment and threats. Nothing in the petition is vague, he said.
Davenport may not agree, but the statement is not vague, Dara said.
“There really isn’t much ambiguity about what this is about,” he said.
He pointed to complaints from parish staff about Scott’s behavior that were reported to their supervisor, who reported them to Bishop. She said the complaints came after “an incident” at a committee meeting, the petition states.
The employees are “very uncomfortable with the escalation and are worried,” it says.
“They found Mr. Jay Scott’s severe profanity and racist undertones offensive and unprofessional,” she explained, saying it was her job to provide her employees with a safe and positive work environment.
“There’s nothing unclear about this,” Dara told Doggett.
As for the employee who was shown the allegedly explicit photos and videos, Dara said that this shows what Scott was aware of.
“There’s plenty of material here for him to react to.”
He said this case involved a juror talking to a subordinate about inappropriate topics. He also said it didn’t matter who sent Scott the material and he had no right to share the images unless the owner gave his consent.
There is a law in Louisiana that prohibits the sharing of private images without their consent, he said.
Dara said the petition was far from vague and that Scott had received more than he needed to prepare his defense.
“There is one example after another,” he said.
He also informed Doggett that he would seek a temporary restraining order regarding the photos and videos to protect the employee.
Doggett said she believed the petition contained enough concrete examples, but said Bishop could limit himself to arguing only what was in the petition. Dara had questions about the images and video, so she asked to speak to Doggett in private.
As he and Davenport spoke with Doggett at her bench, the conversation became heated. Dara was heard telling Davenport that he needed to calm down.
After that process was completed, Davenport said he would not proceed with two other appeals he had filed and announced he intended to appeal the decision.
