District Attorney Scott Perrilloux has endorsed Assistant District Attorney Brad Cascio to succeed him. When Cascio’s opponent used parish payment records in a campaign mailer attacking Cascio’s law firm, Perrilloux’s office announced a criminal investigation into the councilwoman who supplied those records. That puts the DA’s office in an unusual position: it can investigate the source of a campaign attack on the candidate its own district attorney supports.
The question is bigger than whether Livingston Parish Councilwoman Erin Sandefur properly handled the parish government-provided check images. What prevents the powers of prosecution—and the public announcement of their use—from becoming an advantage for one side in the DA’s race?
An Endorsement Backed by Investigative Authority?
The campaign mailer came from Sherman Mack, ADA Cascio’s opponent. Its images showed payments to the Moody Law Firm, where Cascio works alongside his position in the DA’s office. Sandefur acknowledged supplying the records to Mack.
According to the Advocate’s account, Perrilloux initially thought her conduct might amount to an internal policy violation. He said her admission, her explanation, and the resulting burden on parish Finance prompted further investigation. The paper also reports a rather curious assurance from Perrilloux: his endorsement of his ADA, Cascio, would not factor into his investigation.
Perrilloux’s assurance leaves the public with another question: Who is actually conducting and supervising this investigation? The supplied reports describe the criminal inquiry as an investigation by Perrilloux’s office. They do not identify the lead investigator, an assigned prosecutor, or an outside agency handling it. Nor do they establish whether Perrilloux personally directs each investigative step or whether Cascio participates.
In fact, we don’t know if Assistant District Attorney Brad Cascio has played any role in the referral, discussions, or decisions related to an investigation that could benefit his political campaign. We also don’t know what independent review separates the DA and his ADA’s prosecutorial judgment from their preferred election outcome.
The DA is Part of the Arrangement.
The May 2024 engagement letter shows why the payment records matter. Signed by Perrilloux and Parish President Randy Delatte, the agreement provides for a $6,000 monthly fee for general legal services, paid through the DA’s office using parish funding. It also authorizes separate payments directly from the parish for specified work, at $175 per hour for attorneys and $80 per hour for paralegals.
Cascio appears on the firm’s letterhead. The firm’s paid engagement is documented; how much Cascio personally received is a separate question. The contract includes broad categories of services in the monthly fee and permits additional hourly charges. It also says the firm need not itemize its flat-fee services. That raises an obvious accountability question: How would officials ensure that separately billed work was not already covered by the monthly payment?
Were any services billed twice? The engagement letter cannot answer that. Invoices, payment approvals, the agreements governing each period, and work records are needed. Two payment streams alone do not establish duplicate billing, and this letter expressly excludes Deer Run litigation from its condition concerning other litigation engagements.
The mailer’s accusations, therefore, remain claims to be tested. But taxpayers need access to the underlying records to test them. Any lawful redactions should be explained, with the remaining public information available for examination. Hopefully, all that is plausible without the examining party becoming the subject of a criminal investigation.
A Request Without the Right Paperwork?
Parish officials have distinguished requesting documents through the council and submitting a request through their usual public-records channel. According to the Livingston Parish News, Parish President Randy Delatte acknowledged that the council requested Moody Law Firm payment information from the Finance Department. He also said the records were obtained legally.
In Unfiltered with Kiran’s account, Delatte explained why the parish’s usual redactions had not occurred: “We have a person that does public records, and he never got a request, so he never [sic] redacted nothing,” Delatte said. But Louisiana’s Legislative Auditor offers a useful explanation of what the law requires: The Public Records Law does not prescribe any particular method for making public records requests.
That comes from the Auditor’s guidance on email requests. Its broader public-records guide recognizes in-person requests and says a reasonable description of the information sought is sufficient. A request does not acquire legal significance only after someone completes the parish’s preferred form.
An elected official may have access to information that cannot lawfully be released to the public. But a record does not become confidential simply because it was obtained outside the parish’s usual public-records process. Under R.S. 44:31, the custodian bears the burden of identifying the legal exemption that prevents public inspection. Which exemption applies here? The District Attorney didn’t say.
Public Records Can Be Used to Criticize Government.
The Auditor’s guide addresses another point particularly relevant to a campaign mailer. A person’s access rights are not impaired by using records to: “publish or distribute the information in a manner critical to the public body.” That explanation appears on page 18 of the guide. The rule does not authorize disclosure of legally protected information. It does, however, contemplate something rather ordinary: using public records to criticize government.
Parish officials say publishing the unredacted bank information required replacing the account. Perrilloux cites harm to the parish and possible malfeasance in office. Those are his stated reasons for investigating; they deserve examination alongside the political relationships.
When an Investigation Becomes a Campaign Event.
But announcing a criminal investigation during an election can influence voters before any charge is filed. Here, it shifts attention from a mailer’s criticism of the endorsed candidate’s firm to possible criminal conduct by the official who helped his opponent obtain public records. The District Attorney’s investigative authority exists to investigate crimes, not to referee campaign disputes. What identified crime required a public announcement of an investigation before officials had explained which legal duty Sandefur allegedly violated?
Louisiana R.S. 18:1465 prohibits the use of public funds to urge electors to vote for or against a candidate. Then there’s La. R.S. 42:1116(B), which prohibits a public servant from using the authority of his office to compel or coerce another person or public servant to engage in activity that supports or opposes a candidate. An investigation’s political benefit alone does not establish that violation. It does make the purpose, timing, and use of taxpayer-funded investigative resources worth examining, though.
There is also an established safeguard for prosecutorial conflicts. Code of Criminal Procedure Article 680 requires recusal when a DA has a personal interest in a matter that conflicts with the fair and impartial administration of justice. Louisiana courts have applied that rule to circumstances involving a direct connection between the matter under investigation and the district attorney. Whether that provision applies at this stage is itself a legal question. The principle behind it, however, raises another.
Here, Perrilloux has
- endorsed the candidate whose campaign was attacked
- employed him as an Assistant District Attorney
- personally signed the legal-services agreement at the center of the controversy
What legal review has Perrilloux sought of his own position in this investigation?
The Bigger Issue
The concern extends beyond Sandefur. An official who sees a colleague publicly investigated for supplying public records may hesitate before offering that campaign—or the public—assistance. That kind of chilling effect also has the power not only to influence an election but also to shape the outcomes of countless governmental operations.
The engagement letter and announced investigation do not necessarily establish a cover-up. They do expose a situation in which officials connected to lucrative paid legal arrangements also have the authority to investigate a person who helped a political opponent challenge that arrangement. Perrilloux says his endorsement will not affect the investigation — but his investigation is already part of the election.
###
Facts First. Even When They’re Inconvenient.
Some outlets or groups tell you what to think. Others have discovered there’s an easier way to build an audience: tell people exactly what they want to hear. We’ve chosen a harder path.
At Citizens for a New Louisiana, we start with the evidence — public records, financial disclosures, court filings, voting records, audits, and original documents — and follow it wherever it leads. Sometimes the facts confirm what we expected. Sometimes they surprise us. Sometimes they disappoint our friends. Either way, we publish them.
That approach doesn’t always produce the loudest headlines or the easiest fundraising. But over time, it produces something much more valuable: TRUST. If you value independent Louisiana journalism that puts evidence ahead of outrage and principle ahead of tribe, please help us continue the work.
Become a Monthly MemberContribute $10 NowMake a Tax Deductible Gift
Already have a donor-advised fund? Ask your DAF administrator about recommending a grant to New Louisiana Foundation.
