# Blank

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · March 19, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11278110

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel Joseph Blank v. Darrel Vannoy
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** March 19, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11278110

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the district attorney, as representative of the state, “seeks justice only, equal and impartial justice, and it is as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty man escapes”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANIEL JOSEPH BLANK CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
DARREL VANNOY NO. 16-00366-BAJ-RLB
ORDER
Before the Court is Respondent’s Renewed Motion to Enroll Additional
Counsel (Doc. 158), which remains partially pending before the Court. Respondent
seeks to enroll Ryan K. French of Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, LLP. Petitioner
objects to the enrollment of a private attorney on behalf of the State in this capital
post-conviction proceeding and raises concerns about the propriety of Taylor Porter’s
involvement.! (Docs. 166, 198).
In Draughn v. Vannoy, No. 2025-KD-0128 (La. 12/16/2025), the
Louisiana Supreme Court found that the Attorney General was not prohibited from
hiring private counsel, including Taylor Porter, to assist in defending the State or
State officers in habeas cases. The Louisiana Board of Ethics also determined that
the contract between the Attorney General and Taylor Porter is permissible.
(Doc. 188-1).

Attorney General's husband is a partner at Taylor Porter. (Doc. 188-1) (Board of Ethics
Opinion confirming John Murrill’s position as a partner and his 2.7% ownership interest in
Taylor Porter). Taylor Porter has contracts with the Attorney General’s Office to perform
legal work on the Attorney General’s behalf. (Doc. 166-1 to 166-7).

Petitioner correctly points out that the Court has the authority to determine
who may appear before it. See United States v. State of La., 751 F. Supp. 608, 614
(E.D. La. 1990) (“[T]his Court has .. . [the] power to resolve who may be permitted to
appear before it and... neither state statutes nor state courts can be dispositive of
any dispute over representation of a party in this federal court case.”). But keeping
in mind the importance of a party’s choice of counsel, and that “the power to control
admission ... ought to be exercised with great caution,” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32, 48 (1991), the Court does not find it appropriate to deny Respondent his
choice of counsel.
The Court, however, remains mindful that Petitioner has raised valid concerns
about the propriety of private counsel’s involvement in capital habeas proceedings.
Accord Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 805 (1987) (recognizing
that enrollment of private counsel on the government’s behalf has at least “the
potential for private interest to influence the discharge of public duty.”); see also State
v. Tate, 171 So. 108, 112 (La. 1936) (noting that the district attorney, as
representative of the state, “seeks justice only, equal and impartial justice, and it is
as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is
to see that no guilty man escapes”); State v. Reed, 405 So. 3d 560, 561 (La. 2025)
(Wimer, J., concurring) (“Time and time again the United State Supreme Court has
reminded us ‘death is different’ because that sentence, once imposed, cannot be
rectified.”). The Court here, and in all cases, is charged with safeguarding “public
confidence in the judicial system [and] the legal profession,” Drumm v. Drumm,

No. 25-2223, 2026 WL 221001, at *5 (E.D. La. Jan. 28, 2026), and “is obliged to take
measures against unethical conduct occurring in connection with any proceeding
before it,” Woods v. Covington Cnty. Bank, 587 F.2d 804, 810 (5th Cir. 1976). Thus,
the Court may revisit the issue in the future if necessary.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Renewed Motion to Enroll
Additional Counsel (Doc. 158) is GRANTED. The following attorney will be added
as counsel on behalf of Respondent:
Ryan K. French
La. Bar Roll No. 34555
Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, LLP

ge
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of March, 2026
Axa
JUDGE BRIAN A. J SON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11278110. Public record. Not legal advice.