Judge suppresses video, rules testimony not allowed in Tate case

The trial for Ville Platte business owner Joseph Gregory Tate, better known as Greg, has been drug out for just over four years now, and it’s end is still not here.
Tate, who was 54 at the time of his arrest, was booked in the Ville Platte City Jail back in October of 2011 on one count of criminal conspiracy to commit second degree battery.
Tate, who ran for the position of Evangeline Parish Clerk of Court, has been accused of hiring Herman Vidrine to beat up one of the candidates that ran against him in the 2011 election.
The charges that Tate, who is being represented by Jacob Fusilier, now faces are two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated second degree battery.
Tate’s time in Judge Gary Ortego’s courtroom on January 19, 2016 was spent making a motion to exclude the introduction of any tape or video recordings and to request that the State of Louisiana’s witness not be allowed to testify or present evidence as to the alleged statements acquired from their now deceased witness, Herman Vidrine.
The State’s only other witness besides Vidrine in this case was Nathaniel Savoy. Savoy, who was a detective and officer with the Ville Platte Police Department and was the State’s chief investigating officer in this matter, has since this incident pled guilty to crimes that include “fraudulent conduct” as a detective and officer while employed with the VPPD. Savoy, who was not actually present at the time of the supposed video recording, has since then been removed from his position with the VPPD.
Due to this, Tuesday in court Fusilier requested that Savoy not be allowed to testify to the legitimacy of Vidrine’s video recording.
When it came to the ruling, Judge Ortego ruled that any tape or video recordings would be suppressed from the trial. Quoting the sixth amendment, Judge Ortego said, “The constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to confront their accuser that is testifying against them. In this case, the only witness who was present at the time of the video recording, Herman Vidrine, is now deceased.” Therefore, Mr. Tate would not be able to confront his accuser.
When it came to deciding if Savoy, who showed up late for court and missed the hearing, would be allowed to testify, Judge Ortego ruled that because Savoy was not present at the time of the supposed video recording of a confession and due to the witness’s unavailability and unreliability, Savoy’s testimony would not be allowed in court.
The State, at this time, will now have the opportunity to appeal Judge Ortego’s ruling to Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
While Fusilier said that his client “maintains his innocence,” this case is not closed yet.