Opinion ID: 2356128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Defendant's Motion to Pass the Case; Further Testimony of Dennis Medeiros

Text: Defense counsel interrupted his cross-examination of Sergeant Catarina in order to move to pass the case. [2] That motion was based on information which defense counsel had received to the effect that Mr. Medeiros's bail was not the $100,000 surety (as indicated in the cooperation agreement [3] ), but was actually personal recognizance in the same amount. Defense counsel further based his motion to pass the case on the fact that it was not until mid-trial that he had received a copy of a federal proffer letter that Mr. Medeiros had signed. [4] Defense counsel argued that his motion to pass the case should be granted because he had been unable to cross-examine Mr. Medeiros with respect to either the change concerning his bail or the federal proffer letter. The trial justice declined to rule on defendant's motion to pass the case at that time and deferred ruling on it until defense counsel had had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Medeiros on those two issues. Mr. Medeiros was in fact recalled so that defense counsel could cross-examine him in this regard. During the renewed cross-examination, Mr. Medeiros stated (1) that he had forgotten about the federal proffer letter agreement which he had signed on March 4, 2002; and (2) that, when he had been cross-examined the first time and did not mention the federal proffer letter as a document he had signed, it was because he had been thinking only about the cooperation agreement he had signed. On redirect, Mr. Medeiros testified that he had not thought that the federal proffer letter was related to the instant prosecution of Mr. Grant. After the further questioning of Mr. Medeiros was concluded, defense counsel again moved to pass the case, and the trial justice once again decided to defer her ruling on the motion.