Fish or Cut Bait: The Procedural Limbo Surrounding Eddie Lau

When someone is arrested, most people assume the criminal justice system has been set in motion. An arrest has been made, charges are pending, and prosecutors are moving forward. Somewhere, a constitutional “speedy trial” clock must already be running. That’s not necessarily true.

The Eddie Lau matter offers a useful illustration of a distinction many members of the public do not fully appreciate: an arrest is not the same thing as the initiation of a prosecution. And in many instances, prosecutions are never initiated.

The Lau Arrest

Chun “Eddie” Lau was arrested in March of 2025 amid a politically charged controversy involving allegedly sending “knowingly false” political text messaging during the Louisiana Senate District 23 race. At the time, Lau was employed by the Jesse Regan campaign, who was seeking to defeat Brach Myers (R 7/10) for the open seat.

Search warrants were executed, electronic devices were reportedly seized, and public attention followed. Yet more than a year later, according to available court data, the 15th Judicial District Attorney’s Office has neither filed a bill of information nor secured an indictment to institute formal criminal prosecution.

While arrests are highly visible events, the machinery that follows is often far less understood and less transparent. The 15th Judicial District Attorney’s Office is responsible for criminal prosecutions across Lafayette, Acadia, and Vermilion parishes — a substantial jurisdiction covering thousands of criminal matters.

Our constitution provides that “…a district attorney, or his designated assistant, shall have charge of every criminal prosecution by the state in his district…” All prosecutions of felony matters shall be initiated by information or indictment. Further, the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 382 states: “A prosecution for an offense punishable by death, or for an offense punishable by life imprisonment, shall be instituted by indictment by a grand jury.  Other criminal prosecutions in a district court shall be instituted by indictment or by information.” In essence, all felony criminal matters in the judicial district are the responsibility of the District Attorney.

The Don

District Attorney Don Landry recently highlighted the workload of his office in campaign messaging, noting that when he assumed office in 2021, the office inherited a ‘criminal caseload exceeding 6,000 cases, some dating back a decade.’ He stated that his administration immediately went to work reducing that burden across felony, misdemeanor, domestic, narcotics, and other criminal prosecutions.

In another recent public communication, Landry referenced 41,787 criminal charges closed during his tenure. Those figures provide important context. But they do not tell the entire story.

District attorneys do not prosecute one case at a time. They operate large screening systems that evaluate evidence, witnesses, constitutional issues, investigative sufficiency, staffing realities, victim considerations, and resource constraints across thousands of matters. They do it with a staff of attorneys that are rarely solely devoted to the role of prosecutor. For many, that is their side gig while they bring home the bacon in private practice.

While that context is worth acknowledging, it also raises another point that deserves equal attention. The public sees prosecutions, but not everything that happens before prosecution. Consider Lafayette Parish alone.

Lafayette Parish Felony Open Cases

A review of Clerk of Court records in September 2025 reflected approximately 5,852 open felony criminal matters — excluding traffic and misdemeanor matters. Those are substantial numbers, but those figures represent only cases that crossed a critical threshold: formal charging. They became visible only because a prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings. What remains largely invisible are the matters that never reach that stage.

Some investigations quietly collapse. Some remain under review. Many result in prosecutorial declinations. Some occupy procedural limbo — neither publicly advanced nor publicly resolved. The Lau matter appears to sit inside that less-visible category.

Speedy Trial?

That reality becomes particularly relevant because a recent inquiry raised a familiar question: What about Lau’s right to a speedy trial? The question is understandable. It is also legally more complicated than many people assume. In everyday conversation, people often use “speedy trial” as shorthand for the idea that the government must quickly bring an arrested person to court. But criminal procedure does not operate quite that simply.

An arrest and a formal criminal prosecution are related concepts, but they are not identical. Generally speaking, constitutional speedy-trial protections become relevant after a person becomes formally accused through recognized charging mechanisms. That is one reason why this article discusses the distinction between “arrested” and “charged.”

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial…” That doctrine was applied to the sovereign states that make up the union through the process of “incorporation,” which continues following the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, Louisiana, like many other states, also has a state constitutional provision concerning the matter.

Our declaration of rights outlines the “right to a fair trial” and provides, “Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to a speedy, public, and impartial trial in the parish…” But none of this starts until the District Attorney initiates the prosecution. For an offense of the grade Lau was arrested, the District Attorney has up to six years, the equivalent of one full term, to decide. That time limit is a very politically convenient number.

Lau Prosecution

To be clear, this is not an argument about whether Eddie Lau should be prosecuted. Reasonable people can disagree about that question. The point is narrower. When a highly publicized arrest occurs, the public naturally expects one of several outcomes within a reasonable period of time: formal prosecution, formal declination, or some identifiable procedural resolution. The longer a matter remains between those categories, the more questions tend to emerge — not only about the underlying allegations but also about institutional transparency and the prosecutorial process. Those questions have now expanded beyond prosecution decisions alone.

Regardless of whether prosecutors ultimately decide to proceed, the practical consequences of the arrest have already been substantial. Electronic equipment reportedly seized during the investigation remains unavailable more than a year later. For an individual whose livelihood depends upon communications, media production, and political consulting, that reality carries consequences independent of any eventual courtroom outcome.

Lawyers sometimes summarize this phenomenon with a familiar phrase: “the process is the punishment.”

Lau’s Attorney Requested Documents

A recently filed Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Sheriff Mark Garber, connected to the broader Lau matter, seeks judicial intervention concerning requested law-enforcement records tied to the underlying investigation. The litigation centers not simply on access but on questions concerning the adequacy, clarity, and legal sufficiency of the public agency’s response to the requested materials.

The plaintiff in the matter is Allyson Melancon, a person well known for her role in defending police officers. The suit was filed by Barry Sallinger, who also represents Lau in the criminal investigation. The suit alleges that on April 20, 2026, Melancon submitted a public records request to Sheriff Garber seeking:

“All video/audio recordings generated by Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office Deputies executing a search warrant at 105 Springwood Circle, Lafayette, LA 70508 on or about March 12, 2025.”

“All video/audio recordings generated by Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office Deputies executing a search warrant at 1600 Camellia Blvd. Bldg. F-100, Lafayette, LA 70508 on or about March 12, 2025.”

The Sheriff’s Office personnel responded by indicating that Melancon would be notified within fourteen days whether responsive records were located. After the Sheriff’s self-imposed deadline lapsed, Melancon followed up with the Sheriff’s Office personnel. On May 13, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office advised “… there were no video/calls for service, where a warrant was executed by the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office at either address.” Clarification was requested, and Captain John Mowell commented: “She is telling you there is no video responsive to your public record request.” No exemptions cited and no certification from the custodian regarding the absence of the record.

Separate Questions

None of this requires concluding that Eddie Lau is innocent. None of it requires concluding that he is guilty. Those are questions prosecutors may eventually answer — or decline to answer. The narrower question is whether a matter that generated search warrants, arrests, property seizures, and substantial public attention should remain indefinitely suspended between accusation and prosecution.

At some point, the public expects a decision. Either prosecute the case or decline it. But the longer a matter remains in procedural limbo, the more the process itself is the punishment.

###