A former Louisiana judge who was convicted of sex crimes against minors in 2020 is back in prison after an appeals court overturned a lower court decision granting Elzey “Jeffrey” Perilloux’s release from custody on a $300,000 bond.
Perilloux was released Aug. 24 after Judge Franz Zibilich approved the bond following a hearing. But he was required to return to prison after the Fifth Circuit of Appeal placed a stay on the bond agreement. State Attorney General Jeff Landry petitioned the court to overrule the stay granted to Perilloux, who is in the process of appealing his conviction on sex counts and his subsequent sentence to 14 years in prison.
“He is (still) pursuing the bond …” Perilloux’s attorney, Jim Boren, told the Louisiana Record in an email. Boren added that the issue would reach the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Perilloux, who was admitted to the Louisiana State Bar in 1993 and suspended from practicing law in 2020, was found guilty of three felony counts of indecent conduct with juveniles, as well as a misdemeanor count of sexual battery, after a five-day trial three years ago, according to the state Attorney General’s Office.
“Sex offenses against children are the most serious of crimes which cause permanent psychological harm,” state Attorney General Jeff Landry said in a prepared statement at the time of the conviction. “This trauma has been exacerbated by Mr. Perilloux’s continued refusal to admit and/or take responsibility for what he did to these young women, who were children when these crimes were committed.”
The federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana suspended Perilloux from practicing law in February 2021, according to court documents.
In August of last year, the state’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the state a supervisory review of Perilloux’s second motion for a new trial, which was filed in the 40th Judicial District Court in St. John the Baptist Parish..
“We find that (the) defendant’s allegation of jury misconduct is not new evidence that could be admitted at trial … and that (the) defendant has not demonstrated the existence of any new evidence which could produce a verdict different from that rendered at trial,” the appeals court said in an Aug. 24, 2022, decision.