Opinion ID: 2328199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hearing on the Application

Text: On December 5 and 13, 2005 and on January 23, 2006, a hearing was held in the Superior Court for Providence County with respect to Mr. DeCiantis' application for postconviction relief. We summarize the testimony from that hearing that is pertinent to applicant's contentions on appeal. 1. The Testimony of David Leach David Leach, who was called as a witness by applicant's attorney, testified that in 1984 he was a prosecutor who was involved in the prosecution of Mr. DeCiantis for the murder of Mr. Roche. He testified that in that year he had contact with William Ferle, who Mr. Leach indicated was acting as an informant against many people involved in what we think of as organized crime   . Mr. Leach further described Mr. Ferle as a low-level kind of an associate. When asked whether or not he would meet with Mr. Ferle from time to time to discuss what he knew and what evidence he could give, Mr. Leach responded that he had met with Mr. Ferle to discuss potential testimony, but he added that he was not part of any debriefing of [Mr. Ferle] where any original matters came out that had not previously been brought to [his] attention by the State Police. He further explained as follows: You know, something would come to the State Police's attention, they would look at it, they would bring it to my attention and [my co-counsel's], who was working on these cases, as well, was then Assistant Attorney General, and the information would be imparted to us and then there were times where we did speak with him directly, but we were not debriefing him. The applicant's attorney then began to inquire into Mr. Leach's knowledge and recollection as to how Mr. Ferle came into police custody and as to how he was cultivated as an informant and witness. Mr. Leach confirmed that Mr. Ferle was given bail and, to the best of Mr. Leach's memory, was then transferred to protective custody for, among other reasons, facilitating his availability as a potential witness. With respect to those arrangements for Mr. Ferle, it was Mr. Leach's testimony that, while his own position was not such that he could authorize such arrangements on his own, he nevertheless had some input into the process. Mr. Leach was next confronted with applicant's Exhibit 1, which was a document entitled State's Supplemental Response to Defendant's Request for Discovery and Inspection, pertaining to Mr. DeCiantis' murder trial. In that document the state identified Mr. Ferle as a witness, and a Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) record pertaining to Mr. Ferle was attached. The following exchange took place between applicant's attorney and Mr. Leach, regarding Mr. Ferle's BCI record: Q At the time this was provided to the defense, which was February of '84, was thisdid this BCI comprehensively reflect all of the criminal activity of Mr. Ferle that you, yourself, were aware of at that time? A I would probably say no. This is notthis was not in the computerized age. This was a typewritten card, and I am wellalthough, I don't have the timeline exactly in mind, I know there were a number of offenses that he may not have been charged or did not come up until some later point so they were not actual charges on his record I would assume that you may be referring to. Q All right. Are you aware of having disclosed to the defense any other crimes where Mr. Ferle admitted his involvement other than what appears on the BCI? A I'm notI'm not sure of that because I don't know in terms of the timeline where Mr. Ferle had testified in other cases prior to that in which the matters had become public or not so I don't know the answer to that right now. Mr. Leach also testified as follows regarding the extent of his knowledge of any arrangements that had been made with Mr. Ferle for the purpose of obtaining his testimony: [M]y understanding is, from the very beginning, his main concern was that he not be in an ACI situation and that he asked that of the State Police. And, of course, they were not in authority to grant that but said they would do the best they could for him. That was conveyed to the members of the Attorney General's Office who also indicated that that was not something that could be comitted [ sic ] to   . Mr. Leach then provided further testimony to the effect that a document which set down specifics of a disposition which went before the court was not something that was drawn up or agreed to at the time that [he] was involved in the case. With respect to whether or not Mr. Ferle would receive an advantageous disposition, it was Mr. Leach's testimony that he [knew] that [Mr. Ferle] hoped  for such a disposition but that Mr. Ferle wouldn't have any commitment through [him] or [his co-counsel] or    a Deputy Attorney General, that that would happen   . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Leach was then questioned again regarding what he had or had not disclosed to Mr. DeCiantis' trial attorney. Mr. Leach was asked whether he had disclosed to the defense only that information shown on the BCI. He responded as follows: I don't know that to be true. I mean, I read some of the cross-examination of Ferle by [applicant's trial attorney], and it's clear to me that there were other crimes and instances which may not have been indicted at that point that he was crossing on. So it was clear to me, from what I read to refresh my recollection, that he was aware of them because he was asking questions about them. So I'm not sure if they were in another document. I'm not sure if they were public knowledge because Ferle had already testified to them or not. I just don't know at this point. Shortly thereafter, the following exchange occurred: Q But the question, Mr. Leach, is simple. Did you know Mr. Ferle had admitted to involvement in more than the three cases that we just referred to? A I can only answer it by saying that I have no present recollection but, looking at the transcript, my sense is that I must have because my sentence ends in a place where it wouldn't end if I hadn't been asked a question at that point. Q So you must have had knowledge of more than three, correct? A I would have to say I assume that that is the case from Mr. Leach was then asked whether or not he had disclosed to the defense Mr. Ferle's involvement in a robbery referred to as the Heritage Loan Robbery. [5] Mr. Leach testified that he could not specifically answer that one way or the other; he also stated that he believed that applicant's trial attorney was aware of those other cases, but that he did not remember specifically how that information was transmitted   . Similarly, when asked about disclosure of Mr. Ferle's alleged involvement in the murder of one Ronald McElroy, Mr. Leach testified that he had no specific recollection [ ] and that he did not know one way or the other any particular discussion [that he] might have had with [applicant's trial attorney] and/or anyone else about it. The applicant's attorney also questioned Mr. Leach with respect to his understanding of his obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence. Mr. Leach responded that anything that was exculpatory would be absolutely something that one would inform defense counsel about; he also answered in the affirmative when asked whether the obligation to disclose continues to points beyond trial. In addition, Mr. Leach stated as follows: I think the matters that you're talking about, as best I understand, are matters that would have to do with the impeachment of Mr. Ferle   . Mr. Leach was then confronted with applicant's Exhibit 4, which was a State's Supplemental Answer pertaining to the criminal prosecution of a person other than Mr. DeCiantis; that Supplemental Answer, dated September 12, 1984, was signed by Mr. Leach's co-counsel in that other case (who was also his co-counsel in Mr. DeCiantis' case). In that document, it is stated that [d]uring the course of the de-briefing of William Ferle, he has indicated his involvement in the following criminal activity. The Supplemental Answer proceeded to itemize six cases concerning which indictments by grand jury had been issued, two cases that were considered continuing investigations by the State Wide Grand [Jury], nine cases as to which the statute of limitations had run, three cases involving organized crime figures as victims where no complaining victim had come forward, and four cases of robbery in which William Ferle understands that he will testify    and is a potential defendant   . When asked whether the September 12, 1984 Supplemental Answer refers to many more than the three crimes that [defense counsel] cross-examined Ferle about in Mr. DeCiantis' trial in June, Mr. Leach responded in the affirmative. He was then asked whether it was fair to say that all of the information of [those] crimes contained in the supplemental answer wasn't learned by the [s]tate just shortly before [that] trial. In response, Mr. Leach stated that he would have to assume, no, but he added that he did not have any recollection as to when the different incidents that are mentioned came to the attention of the State Police. Mr. Leach was also confronted with applicant's Exhibit 7, entitled Memorandum of Agreement. That document encapsulated the agreement between Mr. Ferle, the Rhode Island Attorney General, and the Rhode Island State Police. The twelfth provision of that agreement set forth an itemized list of sums of money that Mr. Ferle had received for his support in a `safe' house and for the support of his wife and child. Mr. Leach testified that he did not believe that those amounts were disclosed to Mr. DeCiantis' defense counsel; he added that he did not believe [he] knew them at the time, and he further stated that the Memorandum of Agreement was prepared after he was no longer in the Attorney General's Office. When asked whether or not he felt that it was incumbent upon him to inquire as to what was being spent for Ferle's support so that he could provide this information to the defense, Mr. Leach testified that he did not feel that making such an inquiry was incumbent upon him. He explained that, to his knowledge, this was something that was done for [Mr. Ferle's] safety and protection and was not something that [he] envisioned as a promise or a reward. Mr. Leach was also asked whether he had been the subject of court decisions involving the withholding of evidence from the defense. Mr. Leach confirmed that he was the prosecutor in several cases that [applicant's attorney was] referring to which involved issues involving a Rule 16, each one being a different issue, yes. During Mr. Leach's cross-examination by the state, he reiterated that, at the time of Mr. DeCiantis' trial, he was not in a position to set any sort of policy as it related to the treatment of confidential informants or protected witnesses. Mr. Leach also reiterated his earlier testimony, by stating that he was not physically present at any time going through [Mr. Ferle's] debriefings. He further testified that he purposefully refrained from interviewing parties who had not yet admitted to crimes and from taking initial statements from potential defendants so as not to make [him]self a witness to a trial. On cross-examination, Mr. Leach was again shown applicant's Exhibit 1 ( viz., the State's Supplemental Response to Defendant's Request for Discovery and Inspection with Mr. Ferle's BCI record appended thereto). He confirmed that there was no reference on the appended BCI record to a pending murder charge or to a pending robbery charge. Mr. Leach was then shown portions of the transcript of Mr. DeCiantis' trial where defense counsel was cross-examining Mr. Ferle relative to a pending robbery charge and a pending murder charge. Mr. Leach confirmed that he did not object to either line of questioning. Mr. Leach was also shown a portion of the trial transcript in which he was asked by the trial justice whether or not Mr. Ferle had been given any promises. Mr. Leach read his response from the transcript: I would indicate, Your Honor, he has nothing in writing he has indicated to come forward. He is in Protective Custody, and he does not know what the ultimate disposition of his cases will be and the cases for which he has been indicted. He has testified in the Grand Jury on all of those cases and waived all of his Fifth Amendment privileges. It was then Mr. Leach's testimony at the postconviction relief hearing that he had not seen or read anything which would suggest to him that his answer to the trial justice at the time of the DeCiantis trial had not been truthful. Mr. Leach was then shown the state's Exhibit A, which he identified as a document furnished by the state to defense counsel in a different criminal proceeding. The document was entitled State's Answer to Defendant's Motion to be Furnished with Evidence Favorable to the Accused. That document indicated that [n]o promises, rewards or inducements, other than personal safety and the safety of his family have been made to William R. Ferle   . Mr. Leach confirmed that the document was dated May 21, 1984. 2. The Testimony of Major Michael Urso Michael Urso, who was also called as a witness by applicant's attorney, testified that he held the rank of major when he retired from the Rhode Island State Police. He stated that in 1984 he was a lieutenant, and he confirmed that he was involved in the handling of Mr. Ferle as a witness. Major Urso confirmed that Mr. Ferle had been in custody for at least six months prior to the trial of Mr. DeCiantis in June of 1984. When asked whether, in the first two months that [Mr. Ferle] was in custody, the majority of Mr. Ferle's crimes were disclosed to Major Urso, the retired police officer testified that he could not say that for sure. Major Urso explained his answer as follows: Because as we went along, he would think of things that happened, and as time went on, he would think of other crimes that he just didn't think of, and he would bring them up at that point, and then we would document them. Upon further questioning by applicant's attorney, Major Urso indicated that he could not put a period of time or indicate in which month it was when Mr. Ferle made admissions as to everything that he had done. It was also Major Urso's testimony that there was no time set by which time Mr. Ferle had to disclose all of his criminal involvement. Upon further inquiry by applicant's attorney, Major Urso stated that it was very possible that, by June of 1984, Mr. Ferle would have mentioned every crime in which he had been involved. Major Urso also testified that, according to his recollection, a representative of the Attorney General was not with him during any debriefings during which Mr. Ferle's disclosures were made, thereby confirming Mr. Leach's testimony to that effect. Major Urso was confronted with the transcript of his own testimony on August 29, 1984 at the trial of a different criminal case. Major Urso was referred to a portion of the transcript of that trial where he was asked whether he had told Mr. Leach and his prosecutorial co-counsel that money was being supplied for Mr. Ferle's rent and the like and where he responded that he believed that he had done so; he added that his best estimate as to when he provided the prosecutors with that information would have been January of 1984. Major Urso stated that he recalled giving that testimony; he further stated that, if he said it at that time, then he was confident that it was true. Major Urso was then questioned about specific sums of money and about support that Mr. Ferle received. Major Urso was also questioned about applicant's Exhibit 2a debriefing statement made by Mr. Ferle in connection with the Heritage Loan Robbery. He identified the exhibit as a report prepared by Detective Anthony Pesare, dated January 24, 1984. It was Major Urso's testimony concerning that report that, prior to the case going to the Grand Jury, it would be given, more than likely, to the Attorney General. When asked whether he recalled that an indictment of Mr. Ferle for that robbery was returned in February of 1984, Major Urso testified that he did not have a recollection of that date. Major Urso was also shown applicant's Exhibit 3, which he identified as a debriefing statement made by Mr. Ferle relative to a particular murder. He acknowledged that the debriefing statement was dated February 29, 1984, but he testified that he did not know when that debriefing statement would have been communicated to the Attorney General's Office. Major Urso was then asked by the hearing justice whether he believed that it was the custom and practice of the State Police to have those kind[s] of discussions with members of the Attorney General's staff prior to its submission of the [s]tate to bring it to Grand Jury   . Major Urso responded in the affirmative. Major Urso was then shown applicant's Exhibit 4 (the state's Supplemental Answer pertaining to another criminal prosecution, which contained a list of Mr. Ferle's criminal activities); he was asked to confirm that all of the crimes listed on that exhibit had come to light in the debriefing sessions conducted by Major Urso and his colleagues, and he once again responded in the affirmative. On cross-examination by the state, Major Urso testified that, in many cases, after a debriefing, police follow-up would be required. And he confirmed that it was fair to say that police follow-up [was] necessary before indictments would issue with respect to the debriefings which were the subject of applicant's Exhibits 2 and 3. Major Urso also confirmed on cross-examination that, at some point, the Attorney General's Office was made aware of the fact that Mr. Ferle was in custody, that there was some sort of    set up that the State Police had with him, in which he was being financially supported. Major Urso testified that, while Mr. Ferle was in the custody of the State Police, it was never contemplated that he would hold a jobbecause, in the Major's words, his life was in danger. Major Urso confirmed that, during the period in which Mr. Ferle was being debriefed and in which he was offering testimony, he was being supported in a custody scenario by the State Police. He testified that a fund was tapped to assist with that support; he added that the money in that fund came from the New England State Police Compact Association. Major Urso also testified that the State Police made mortgage payments for Mr. Ferle until his house was sold; he also confirmed that there had been a plan to use the proceeds from the sale of the house to repay the New England State Police Compact Association. On redirect, Major Urso confirmed that, in a case such as applicant's, which was not a State Police case but a Providence Police case, some other agency would be doing the investigative work. Major Urso then confirmed that, in some cases, the State Police would have no interest in holding back information; he said that, instead, the interest would be getting it as quickly as possible to the Attorney General to decide how best to prosecut[e]. [6] 3. The Testimony of Anthony DeCiantis Anthony DeCiantis was the last witness to testify during the hearing on his application for postconviction relief. The testimony elicited on direct and cross-examination primarily concerned when Mr. DeCiantis acquired the information necessary to allege that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence. [7] On cross-examination, counsel for the state also elicited testimony to the effect that applicant's trial attorney had passed away prior to the postconviction relief hearing and so was unavailable to testify regarding what information he did or did not have at the time of Mr. DeCiantis' trial. D