Opinion ID: 2107127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Defendant's Request for Copy of Immunity Order or Transcript of Hearing

Text: The defendant first argues that his due process rights were violated when the state failed to disclose all of the promises made to William in exchange for his testimony at defendant's trial. The defendant contends that he was entitled to receive a copy of the immunity hearing transcript or, at the very least, a copy of the immunity order; he adds that he was entitled to have same before defense counsel's cross-examination of William began. [25] In addition, defendant contends that, in the course of summarizing the immunity hearing in open court during defendant's trial, the prosecutor made no mention of the fact that William had been promised immunity in other jurisdictions as well as Rhode Island. Despite the prosecutor's in-court representation, defendant argues that it was the understanding of William's attorney and the presiding justice that such immunity was included in the subsequently entered immunity order. This, according to defendant, fell within the requirement that exculpatory evidence be disclosed and, therefore, entitles defendant to a new trial. Although defendant did not expressly articulate his objection as falling within the parameters of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), it is evident to us from both the record and defendant's submissions that the principles enunciated in that case lie at the core of his argument. [26] Accordingly, we will analyze his argument within the framework of Brady and Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. It should also be noted that the immunity order itself contained, in pertinent part, the following language: 1. WILLIAM THOMAS, currently residing at the ACI, shall answer questions posed to him that relate to the robbery of several jewelry salesmen at issue in the above-referenced criminal trial. 2. Such questions include those questions relating to the facts admitted to him under oath during his plea before Justice Dimitri,    and any derivative questions thereto. 3. It is the opinion of the Attorney General that should WILLIAM THOMAS be compelled to answer questions related to this investigation, he shall not be incriminated in any other jurisdiction   . [27] As an initial matter it should be noted that, nothing in the record indicates that William was promised anything in exchange for his testimony at defendant's trial. The prosecutor so stated in open court at defendant's trial. Following the immunity hearing before the presiding justice, the prosecutor returned to the courtroom where defendant's trial was being held and made the following representations in open court: With respect to promises, rewards, or inducements, there are none offered to this witness. At the time he pled guilty, he never gave a statement to the police and he never entered into a cooperation agreement with the State of Rhode Island. He pled guilty and the only promise made to him was that received from the Court to the defendant [William] himself saying he would get no more than twelve years to serve.    The State never promised him anything, aside from the fact I would agree to a cap of twelve years to serve   . There is no promise, reward, or inducement to get him to testify today. William also testified at defendant's trial, both on direct and while being cross-examined by defense counsel, that he had received no promises, rewards, or inducements in exchange for his testimony at defendant's trial. During the prosecutor's direct examination of William, the following exchange occurred: Prosecutor: Did you ever agree to help the State at the time you pled guilty? William: No, I did not. Prosecutor: I never made you any promises, right? William: No. Prosecutor: And no one else from the Attorney General's Office has either? William: No, sir. Prosecutor: And before your testimony today, have I ever promised you anything in exchange for your testimony? William: No.    Prosecutor:    And is it fair to say that at the time you pled guilty, the Court told you that the only promise being made to you is that if you plead guilty, you would receive no more than twelve years to serve in the ACI   ? William: Yes The prosecutor raised a hearsay objection to defense counsel's questioning of William about what had taken place at the immunity hearing. [28] The trial justice overruled the prosecutor's hearsay objection. Although he was not barred from doing so, at no point did defense counsel ask William about his subjective understanding of the immunity proceedings and the resultant immunity order. It is also clear from the record that the prosecutor's summary of the immunity hearing and his summary of the presiding justice's comments from the bench at the time that he granted immunity to William with respect to his anticipated trial testimony provided defendant with the information that he would need to be able to conduct a meaningful cross-examination of William with respect to the grant of immunity. The attorney who represented him at the immunity proceeding stated on the record at defendant's trial that it was his understanding that the immunity granted to William would extend to other jurisdictions. Therefore, defendant cannot now convincingly argue that his attorney had not been provided with sufficient information in order to be able to cross-examine William meaningfully with respect to how he understood the grant of immunity. Accordingly, we perceive no error in the trial justice's ruling that defendant was not entitled to receive a transcript of the immunity proceedings or have delivered to him a copy of the immunity order. B