Opinion ID: 1968592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Custodial FactsMateriality

Text: Not only were the facts surrounding Gilbert's confinement cumulative and impeaching but they were also not material. In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), the United States Supreme Court set forth the test to be applied when determining the materiality of evidence in postconviction proceedings attacking a prior conviction. The Court said that pursuant to its decision in United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), the touchstone of materiality is a `reasonable probability' of a different result   . The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. A `reasonable probability' of a different result is accordingly shown when the Government's evidentiary suppression `undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.'    A defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict. The possibility of an acquittal on a criminal charge does not imply an insufficient evidentiary basis to convict. One    [must show] that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434-35, 115 S.Ct. at 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d at 506 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 678, 105 S.Ct. at 3381, 87 L.Ed.2d at 491). The trial justice hearing Gerald's application for postconviction relief, we note, recited the correct standard for determining the materiality of the alleged newly discovered evidence in his written opinion. However, he failed to apply that standard as set out in Kyles in that he concluded that, other than the testimony of Gilbert, which he discounted in light of the newly discovered evidence, there was insufficient evidence in the record to sustain Gerald's conviction. [6] As quoted above, the United States Supreme Court in Kyles specifically rejected that approach. The Court there held that the trial justice reviewing the evidence need not determine whether there was sufficient evidence to convict absent the discounted evidence but must instead determine whether the previously undisclosed favorable evidence puts the case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. [7] See also Lerner v. Moran, 542 A.2d 1089, 1091-92 (R.I.1988). The evidence concerning Gilbert's confinement did not so undermine confidence in the trial jury's verdict. Gilbert's credibility during Gerald's trial was more than significantly attacked. Defense counsel there emphasized, as we noted earlier, Gilbert's long and varied criminal history as well as his tendency to lie under oath. Defense counsel had also elicited for the trial jury that Gilbert had been taken out to eat some twenty-five to fifty times during his police-custody confinement. Admittedly, defense counsel was also aware of other details about Gilbert's custodial confinement learned from his attendance at pretrial hearings in the unrelated State v. Broccoli and State v. Mastrofine, C.A. no. P1/86-580, cases. Those details included Gilbert's month-long stay at a safe house in Narragansett and Gilbert's conjugal visits with his wife. Defense counsel, however, intentionally chose not to bring out that evidence at Gerald's murder trial. We conclude in light of the self-corroborating nature of the testimony given by Gilbert to the jury at Gerald's trial, and the exposure to the jury by defense counsel of Gilbert's criminal and personal background, that the so-called posttrial newly discovered evidence relating to Gilbert's activities while in police custody, even if known to the trial jury, would not have in any circumstance created a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict would have been any different. Although it is clear that knowledge of Gilbert's skydiving lessons did not surface until after the trial and after Gilbert's death, there appears to be no valid reason advanced other than trial strategy as to why defense counsel at trial could not have questioned Gilbert about what he did while in police custody and what activities he engaged in when he was not confined to his police-station apartment. Defense counsel was aware of the moneys paid to Gilbert by the state and had been given ledger sheets concerning those funds. In addition defense counsel had sat through the entire voir dire of Gilbert when he was thoroughly examined by other counsel in the Gasbarro robbery case, a case that was based in great part on Gilbert's testimony as a state's witness. Defense counsel had received a transcript of that voir dire hearing. Defense counsel, Dale Anderson (Anderson), admitted that he was also aware, prior to Gerald's trial, that Gilbert, while in police-custody confinement, had access to a telephone, had consumed beer in his quarters, had visited his wife for conjugal visits, had gone out with his wife for an anniversary dinner, had visited with his wife and family for some 30 days around the holidays in 1986, had visited with his wife at the Holiday Inn, had gone out to eat dinner some 25 to 50 times, had traveled to Florida twice, had used drugs, had earned between $4,000 to $10,000 per week selling drugs for Gerald's father, had committed perjury in 1976, and had collected welfare payments while in police custody. Yet despite knowing all those facts, Anderson chose not to question Gilbert about any of those matters during Gerald's trial. Anderson later testified at Gerald's postconviction hearing about what his trial strategy had been as well as his reasons for not delving into the nature and details of Gilbert's police-custody confinement. He stated: A. As a result of the Gasbarro voir dire, I concluded it would be a waste of time to cross-examine Gilbert virtually at all as to the material conditions of his life, his lifestyle, so to speak. He had said, and I had no reason to dispute his testimony, that he was locked up 24 hours a day, any time a lawyer in the Gasbarro voir dire tried to suggest there was anytried to question him about that, he just complained. He said it was, in fact, worse than what the inmates at the ACI had to undergo. Insofar as monetary benefits went, there was nothing to use there either, because he had no access to the money, and if you asked him about that, you got a sob story about his family, most of it went to his family. So that going into the Mastracchio trial, I had no intention of cross-examining Gilbert about conditions of his life, his lifestyle, so to speak, or for that matter, about the monetary benefits he was receiving. The out to dinner 25 to 50 times, I didn't ask about that. It seemed a little picky, and I purposely decided not to impeach him on those lines and instead concentrated on the generous plea bargain he was able to receive for the crimes he committed. To further answer your question, it seemed to me that [the] way this testimony was presented in front of a jury, the conditions of his life were received and given in a way such as to bolster his credibility, rather than detract from it. It came out on Direct, and I didn't want to further bolster his credibility by reiterating the terrible conditions he was living under.    A. My answerI did not question Peter Gilbert in general about his relations with his wife, I think for several reasons. I thought that his answerI risked his answers created sympathy for himself as a witness who was separated from his wife and family, and it wouldin the context of that trial, it would tend to give him another opportunity to emphasize how severe the constraints were on his liberty, how tight the custody arrangements were. I alsoto put it in the more colloquial, I didn't want this jury to think he was some kind of a family man. And, in fact, I made a point of cross-examining him to show that he had been married more times that he could remember, to show that he had children out there that he had nothing to do with, and since these marriages elapsed he had lied to preachers and notary publics and prior wives. I didn't want the jury to focus on his estrangement with his present family.    Q. Prior to Mr. Gilbert testifying at the Mastracchio trial, were you aware that he had perjured himself in testimony before a jury in a 1976 trial? A. I was aware that hethat is, Gilbert, was claiming that he had committed perjury in 1976. Whether he did or not, I suppose, it is kind of hard to know for sure.
Q. And you did not disclose or ask him about that before the Mastracchio jury; is that correct? A. Right, for two reasons. (One) As I said, you could have suggested just about any crime in the world, he would have admitted having committed that before he became a witness and turned his life around. The additional reason is that the perjury he claimed to have committed involved a hearing involving my client's father, and the jury would have heard the context in which that perjury came out. It involved a hearing on Mr. Mastracchio's father's application for post-conviction relief, and I didn't want the jury to hear that my client's father had oncewas once seeking release from imprisonment. Do you follow me? Q. Right, I think I do. Did you consider filing a Motion in Limine to limit the testimony? A. That's a good idea, it didn't occur to me. I did not file such a motion. I don't think that standing alone was worth that much effort, that is, the admission by Gilbert was that he committed perjury. I think it was more of a surprise to Gilbert to confront him with the liethe false statements that he made connected with all of his marriages. Q. One more matter. At the Gasbarro trial Mr. Gilbert said that he had made two trips to Florida, and I'm just curious if you had noticed that in his testimony he said he went once for Court, and, to my understanding of the transcript, nobody ever followed up and said, What was the second trip for'? A. You know, you have a sharper view of this in hindsight.    Q.   Did you ask, `Did you leave your place of custody?' A. I didn't think of that, I just didn't think of asking that. Q. Sure. You did ask about the 25 to 50 visits to restaurants, and then moved on, I believe, rather quickly. Did you consider inquiring as to what kind of restaurants Mr. Gilbert went to? A. If I had been a party to that voir dire, I might have done it then, but since I was not, I didn't know what kind of answers he was going to give, and I wasn't going to find out for the first time in front of the jury, so, no, I didn't. Q. And can we agree that you could have asked for your own voir dire but did not? A. That's correct. Q. Having the benefit of hindsight as I do, I think, Mr. Anderson, in reviewing your cross-examination of Mr. Gilbert at the Mastracchio, Valente trial, I think you've already testified, you spent some considerable time in cross-examining Mr. Gilbert as to his history with wives and such. Could you explain what your purpose or strategy was in doing that? A. Yes. I had documents, so I knew I could prove the answer. The documents included statements that said they were made under oath. They were false as to, `This is my second marriage,' for example, when, in fact, it was his third or fourth. I thought that, therefore, I could prove he made false statements under oath in writing, that also I could establish that at least once, I think twice, he didn't bother to divorce the last wife before he married the next one, so that the marriage vow was itself false. I thought that disclosing to a jury that this witness would enter into a false marriage vow and give a false statement under oath would detract from his credibility. Q. And not only did you think you could prove it, you did prove that he lied on documents under oath; do you recall? A. He admitted that the documents were authentic, and hehis response, as I recall, it was something to the effect of, that was the least of my crimes, you know, yeah, I made a false statement. Q. And if I understand your strategy correctly, you disagreed with Mr. Gilbert that his violation of so important and sacred an oath, really was something that you felt the jury would be deeply influenced by? A. I hoped so. I hoped the jury would have been influenced by that. In hindsight, I think I didn't carry it as far as I should have. To this day I'm curious whether he was married to more than one woman at the day he testified. Q. Do you recall his testifying toward the end of your cross-examination on this topic, `I live a fast life, the life of a criminal'? A. Yes, I do. But, again, if I had followed it up, he was claiming he was no longer a criminal. I would have liked to have knownI should have pursued what hisexact marriage status was at the time of his testimony. Gilbert's testimony, notwithstanding the undisclosed circumstances of his confinement, we conclude, was completely consistent with at least three prior statements given by him in 1985 before his witness-sentence agreement with the state and before the occurrence of the alleged abuses of Gilbert's confinement. On November 20, 1985, Gilbert gave a recorded statement to two members of the Rhode Island State Police in which he explained that Gerald had told him how he and a friend had murdered Valente. Gilbert recited the same facts later at Gerald's trial. In December 1985, Gilbert also testified before a grand jury about how Gerald had confessed to him about the murder of Valente. In that testimony he explained in detail how Gerald had told him that he and Dionne had beaten Valente in the head and had later dumped Valente's body over the rail of the Jamestown Bridge. On December 12, 1985, at Gerald's bail hearing, Gilbert again testified about Gerald's admissions regarding the Valente murder. In his testimony at that hearing, Gilbert testified that Gerald had told him that Valente had had a plate in his head from an automobile accident and that he would have liked to have cultivated Valente because he was supposed to have received a large amount of money from that accident. Gilbert also testified that after Gerald and his friend had savagely beaten Valente on the head and face, they heard Valente make some noises and they believed that he was still alive when they threw him over the rail of the Jamestown Bridge and into Narragansett Bay. There was also testimony presented at the hearing on Gerald's application for postconviction relief that indicated that Gilbert had made other unrecorded statements to the Providence police and to the prosecutor that were consistent with the recorded statements discussed above. Additionally, contrary to the suggestion implicit in Gerald's postconviction assertions regarding the plea and witness agreement Gilbert had entered into with the state, there was no evidence presented that in any way indicated that in return for successful trial testimony Gilbert would be granted the liberal conditions of confinement that were brought out at the hearing on Gerald's application for postconviction relief. In short, there was no tie-in or connection between the two. The state's plea and witness agreement with Gilbert only promised that in return for his testimony he would receive a more lenient sentence than he would have received otherwise, a fact that was thoroughly exploited both on cross-examination and in defense counsel's closing argument at Gerald's jury trial. There was absolutely no evidence presented to support Gerald's contention that Gilbert was at any time under the belief that his trial testimony for the state could result in his being granted additional privileges during custodial confinement and that, as a result, he would lie in order to ensure more favorable treatment. Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the so-called previously undisclosed evidence that Gerald asserts serves to destroy the credibility of Gilbert's trial testimony is simply wishful exaggeration. We do not have here a Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), factual situation where discovery was requested and withheld. Neither do we have a Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), factual situation wherein the prosecutor could be found to have been negligent in failing to discover and make known, for example, Gilbert's skydiving antics during police-custody confinement. What we do have instead is simply a factual situation where, as the hearing justice found, the prosecution was innocent of any wrongdoing and negligence in not informing or being able to inform defense counsel of the several facts concerning Gilbert's custodial confinement that came to public attention shortly after Gilbert's unexpected death, long after the jury trial. In that fact scenario this Court, even after Brady but before Kyles, noted that when posttrial evidence surfaces, that the defense in hindsight believes could have been helpful during the trial, the defense, in order to obtain relief from the jury's verdict, although not required to show the probability of a different verdict upon retrial, is required to show that there would be significant chance that the use and development of the posttrial discovered evidence would have produced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to avoid a conviction. See In re Ouimette, 115 R.I. 169, 342 A.2d 250 (1975). That significant chance rule as announced in In re Ouimette, 115 R.I. at 179-80, 342 A.2d at 254-55, reapplied here, would not in any manner support a conclusion on the record before us that Gerald is entitled to a new trial or, under Kyles, that the undisclosed facts would in any legal sense be sufficiently material so as to serve to undermine confidence in the trial jury's verdict or raise any reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different. Therefore, the hearing justice's reliance upon that posttrial discovered and unrequested evidence in granting Gerald's motion for a new trial was unwarranted and erroneous.