Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected hearing a plea for a St. John the Baptist Parish judge and rebuked the suspended judge for his poor handling of warrant requests, according to the disposition report.

Judge Vercell Fiffie had asked the state’s high court to reconsider sanctions imposed on him last month, after the court on Oct. 25 found that his misconduct on the bench had “caused substantial harm.”

Fiffie, who was sworn in on Jan. 1, 2021, was accused of showing bias against law enforcement by refusing to quickly sign search warrants and recalling warrants issued by another judge, delaying criminal investigations into child pornography, child abuse, domestic violence and more.

The complaints were lodged by Judge Nghana Lewis and St. John the Baptist Sheriff Mike Tregre, and were validated after investigations conducted by the Louisiana Judiciary Commission.

Data showed Fiffie in 2021 rejected 27 percent of the warrants presented to him, while two other judges rejected less than 2.5 percent of the warrants submitted for their approval.

The hearings which transpired between September 2023 to June 2024, that commission recommended that Fiffie be suspended for six months, with three months deferred.

The Supreme Court voted to impose a harsher punishment: A six-month suspension without pay, and an order for Fiffie to reimburse the Judiciary Commission a total of $9,125.29 for the cost of its investigation.

Fiffie had pleaded with the Supreme Court for a new hearing to reappraise the sanctions imposed, but the justices were unimpressed. In the ruling, the court rejected Fiffie’s request and Justice Scott J. Crichton further admonished the St. John judge.

“Despite this clear repudiation of his conduct, in his rehearing application submitted on his own behalf, Judge Fiffie continues to obstinately refuse to take responsibility for the underlying conduct that brought him before the Commission in the first place, acknowledging in broad and vague language only that he acted with ‘admittedly excessive deliberation and care’ and did not ‘bend’ to the will of colleagues.

“Throughout his application, he continues to offer excuses and purported justifications for his actions, claiming that he is a person who is ‘not easily read’ and implying that the Judiciary Commission’s finding was some misunderstanding. He also appears to place blame for the result of the case on the attorney who ably represented him at the argument before the Supreme Court.

“In short, Judge Fiffie’s continued finger-pointing on rehearing, and his related inability to take ownership of the various violations this court has now determined warrant the imposition of discipline, confirms my view that the original sanction was warranted.”