Opinion ID: 566793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: magistrate's findings of fact

Text: 17 Of the fourteen findings of fact made by the district court, the State claims nine are clearly erroroneous. The first three challenged, findings 4, 5, and 6, can be addressed collectively because they all deal with specific and related acts of non-disclosure by the prosecution team at the Bonded Vault trial. 18 Finding No. 4: The Court finds that the prosecution team had full knowledge, before the trial of petitioner Ouimette, that Robert Dussault confessed to committing an armed robbery in New York City. The prosecution agreed, with Dussault, to speak on the latter's behalf concerning this crime. This agreement with Dussault was in part to induce him to testify in the Bonded Vault trial. No disclosure of this was made to petitioner's counsel at trial. 19 Finding No. 5: The Court finds that the prosecution team, which included the Rhode Island State Police and the Providence Police had full knowledge, before the time of petitioner's trial, of the following crimes committed by Dussault subsequent to the Bonded Vault robbery: a crime of housebreaking and safe break in Coventry, Rhode Island and a crime of armed robbery of a coin store in Seekonk, Massachusetts. The prosecutor in the Ouimette case agreed to assist Dussault to avoid the serving of prison time for the pending mentioned crimes.... The prosecutor's offer of help ... was never made known to Ouimette's attorney or to co-defense attorneys at the Bonded Vault trial. 20 Finding No. 6: The Court finds that the prosecutor in the Bonded Vault trial was personally aware in January 1976 that Robert Dussault admitted to robbing the Mechanic's National Bank in Worcester, Massachusetts. This robbery occurred subsequent to Dussault's participation in the Bonded Vault robbery ... [and] was known to the prosecutor several months before Ouimette's trial began. The prosecutor promised Dussault ... that the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office would negotiate with the federal authorities to insure that Dussault served no prison time for the Worcester bank robbery charge. The prosecutor, Albert E. DeRobbio, together with Edward D. Pare and Lionel J. Benjamin of the Rhode Island State Police, and other Rhode Island law enforcement officials associated with the Bonded Vault prosecution initiated those negotiations on Dussault's behalf as early as January of 1976 ... [These] were withheld from the petitioner. 21 Ouimette v. Moran, 762 F.Supp. 468, 472-73 (D.R.I.1991). 22 There is ample evidence in the record based on the court-mandated discovery and the one-day evidentiary hearing to support these findings. An agreement consummated on January 3, 1976, in Las Vegas, Nevada, between Dussault and the state prosecutor when Dussault was first apprehended by Rhode Island authorities, and the testimony of Sergeant William Giblin of the Providence Police Department and Captain Edward Pare, former detective of the Rhode Island State Police, provide concrete evidence of complex and overlapping deals to aid Dussault. Evidence of the actual aid extended consists of testimony about meetings with and letters to law enforcement authorities in other states, especially Massachusetts. Both Giblin's report and Pare's testimony document the fact that the prosecutor promised Dussault he would not do any time in Massachusetts or Rhode Island. Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, Pare Testimony at 10-11; Giblin Testimony at 12. 23 The magistrate's findings 8 and 9, which the state contests, are also related. Both deal with Dussault's previous Massachusetts convictions and his escape from prison, which occurred when he still had twenty-one years to serve in that state. 24 Finding No. 8: The Court finds that the evidence adduced on hearing shows that in 1968 Robert Dussault was sentenced to a term of fifteen to thirty years in the Massachusetts state prison and that he was paroled on this sentence to allow him to serve a consecutive sentence in the Greenfield County House of Correction. Dussault escaped from the Greenfield County House of Correction in 1975 ... [with] approximately twenty-one years remaining to serve ... Dussault has never been called upon to resume serving any portion of his Massachusetts state prison sentence. Yet, Massachusetts authorities were aware of Dussault's location in Rhode Island after his arrest by Rhode Island authorities. Rhode Island authorities negotiated and obtained from Massachusetts authorities a termination of the balance of Dussault's Massachusetts state prison sentence, a remission of fifteen to thirty years imprisonment ... not made known to the petitioner. The non-disclosure was calculated to induce Dussault's testimony against Ouimette in the Bonded Vault trial and the same was not disclosed to petitioner at trial. 25 Finding No. 9: The prosecutor agreed to help Dussault dispose of the escape charge, of which he was accused, from Greenfield County House of Correction and the remainder of the Massachusetts House of Correction jail sentence. In furtherance of that goal, the prosecution negotiated with authorities in Greenfield County, Massachusetts and made Dussault available to those authorities to testify that a guard had negligently allowed him to escape from custody. As a result, Dussault received no jail time for the escape charge. The defense attorneys in the Bonded Vault trial were told only that Dussault would receive some help from Rhode Island authorities for a matter which might be pending in Massachusetts. 26 Id. at 473. 27 The amassed evidence easily permits a reasonable inference that an undisclosed deal, indeed, more than one deal, was made both with and for Dussault. The evidence that there was a bargain struck is three-pronged. First, Dussault was never sent back to Massachusetts to serve his unexpired prison term, nor was he further charged for the prison escape. In fact, he was never sent back to Massachusetts at all, except as noted in the next paragraph, though Massachusetts authorities, who were in contact with Rhode Island authorities, knew where he was virtually from the time of his Las Vegas arrest in January 1976. 28 Second, Dussault did go to Greenfield, Massachusetts, to testify in another criminal prosecution, Commonwealth v. Russell Baird, during the time when the Bonded Vault trial was proceeding in Rhode Island. He testified against the prison guard who had assisted in his escape. His presence there at that very time was obviously part of a deal between Massachusetts and Rhode Island authorities. Interestingly, at Baird's trial Dussault, flanked by Rhode Island police officials, was confronted in open court with the full record of his twenty-eight prior convictions, twenty-four of which had not been disclosed to Ouimette at the Bonded Vault trial. 29 Third, on a pending charge in Massachusetts, the aforementioned robbery of the Mechanic's Bank in Worcester, which occurred after the Bonded Vault robbery, Dussault pled guilty and received a minimum sentence of seven years from which he was immediately paroled. Discovery in Ouimette's habeas case yielded five documents and letters between state officials in Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well as from Rhode Island officials to federal officials pertaining to Dussault's release. Finally, Dussault was promised acceptance into the Federal Witness Program by the state prosecutor, who personally negotiated this for Dussault. Acceptance into this program is predicated on the absence of outstanding criminal charges, so there is a plausible inference that even more undisclosed deals were made. 30 The sixth contested finding of fact is number 11, dealing with the videotape of the bargain between the prosecutor and Dussault in Las Vegas. 31 Finding No. 11: The Court finds that the videotape of the bargain struck between the prosecutor and Robert Dussault in Las Vegas, Nevada, which was in the exclusive hands of the Attorney General's Office, was never provided to petitioner Ouimette. What was provided was a partial and unauthenticated unofficial transcript. Petitioner was provided with a copy of a contemporaneous report from Sgt. Giblin and Lt. Rocchio of the Providence Police ... Those reports were contained in the Rhode Island State Police files and produced in this Court by the keeper of the records. Neither this report nor the one provided by the Attorney General's Office mentioned the crimes which were charged and pending against Dussault at the time he was induced to testify on behalf of the State. 32 Id. at 474. This videotape was played in the courtroom at the Bonded Vault trial, but the defendants, including Ouimette, never received a copy. Even after discovery fourteen years later in 1990, Ouimette was given only the partial, unauthenticated transcript described by the magistrate. Although the antecedents to those reports and this report in the magistrate's finding are a bit unclear, it is evident that he refers to documents produced in this Court, i.e., the habeas court, not the original trial court. There is no error in the court's assertion that neither the partial transcript of the videotape nor the police report gave any clue to Dussault's full criminal record. 33 Findings 10, 13 and 14 all relate to Dussault's record and are also contested by the State. Finding 10 deals with discovery. 34 Finding No. 10: The Court finds that, notwithstanding the multiple motions duly filed by co-defendants for exculpatory evidence and for evidence of rewards, promises and inducements made to Robert Dussault in exchange for his testimony, no such discovery was received by any of the defendants until a motion was made during the trial by petitioner's and a co-defendant's counsel under Rule 26.1 Super.R.Crim.P. This motion elicited the prosecutor's response. He produced a list of only four prior convictions of Robert Dussault and a videotape which was viewed by all defense counsel.... 35 Id. at 473. As the magistrate noted, a motion was made during trial for production of Dussault's full record. In addition, Ouimette's lawyer requested it at a bench conference during trial. It never appeared despite the production of complete rap sheets, including minor traffic violations as well as out-of-state charges, for all other government witnesses. 36 Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 provides for pretrial discovery, which was requested by Ouimette's co-defendants before the Bonded Vault trial. 5 Rule 16(h) mandates a Continuing Duty to Disclose. If a party discovers additional material previously requested which is subject to discovery or inspection under this rule, he or she shall promptly notify the other party of the existence thereof. The district court did not err in delineating the multiple motions duly filed by co-defendants and concluding that the prosecutor's response was to withhold deliberately all but four convictions. 37 Findings 13 and 14, relating to the cumulative evidence of Dussault's complete record and rewards, and the prosecutor's non-disclosure can be analyzed succinctly. 38 Finding No. 13: The Court finds that after the request by petitioner's counsel for a complete record of criminal convictions of Robert Dussault, made at a bench conference during the Bonded Vault trial, the prosecutor failed to provide such a complete record. Further, the Court finds the prosecutor could have readily produced a record of some twenty-eight criminal convictions of Dussault, all of which occurred prior to the trial of petitioner. 39 Finding No. 14: The Court finds the exhibits and testimony in this proceeding establish that records of Dussault's prior criminal convictions had been obtained by two major Rhode Island law enforcement agencies ... and that those records were readily available to the prosecutor for the asking at the time of trial. Upon examination of the evidence adduced at hearing, I find that the prosecutor had in his possession some twenty-one felony and seven misdemeanor convictions of Robert Dussault before he began the prosecution of petitioner Ouimette in the Bonded Vault trial. 40 Id. at 474. 41 There is ample evidence via deposition and testimony that the prosecutor could have produced Dussault's complete cyclopedia of convictions. Id. at 474. Sergeant Giblin, who sat at the prosecutor's table every day of the Bonded Vault trial except the last, testified that he had the full record before the trial and that such records were uniformly turned over to the prosecutor. At the evidentiary hearing Ouimette's lawyer asked Sergeant Giblin: 42 Q. Did you have conversations with Robert Dussault during the course of this trial and-- 43 A. I had several conversations with Mr. Dussault, up until the time that Mr. Danese decided to turn state's evidence, also, and then he was taken out of my hands, and I didn't see him for a period of months until he testified. 44 Q. All right. With respect to the pretrial--excuse me, your assisting Mr. DeRobbio at trial, do you recall whether or not during the course of the trial, Prosecutor DeRobbio ever asked you to obtain the criminal history of Robert Dussault? 45
46 Q. He would have had it? 47 A. Yes, Ma'am. 48 Q. And he would have had that as a result of your efforts? 49 A. Yes, Ma'am. He would have had all the records of all the individuals that were involved. 50 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, Giblin Testimony at 27-28. 51 Captain Pare, in response to the magistrate's questions, answered that it was common practice for his office to turn over to the prosecutor all criminal records in his possession. 52 THE MAGISTRATE: Captain, tell me, is it routine practice and procedure in police work to obtain criminal histories of those suspected of being, as in this case, a lead robber? 53 THE WITNESS: It is routine, yes, your honor. 54 THE MAGISTRATE: Was that routinely done in this case? 55 THE WITNESS: I would say yes. 56 THE MAGISTRATE: And was that done while the trial was ongoing in the Ouimette case? 57 . . . . . 58 THE WITNESS: I would say probably before trial occurred. 59 THE MAGISTRATE: And thus the so-called record of approximately 21 convictions was know[n] to the police, was it not, involving this so-called lead robber, Dussault? 60 MR. GORMAN: [attorney for State] Your Honor, I'm not sure that the record shows that this witness is aware of any particular number of-- 61 THE MAGISTRATE: Well, he just answered that that's the common practice. Was it done in this case? He said yes, it was.... 62 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, Pare Testimony at 23-24. 63 Even the state trial court judge in Rhode Island expressed amazement at the prosecutor's statement regarding Dussault's truncated record before the court: He [Dussault] testified he had been involved for 20 years, and I was sort of surprise [sic] the only convictions presented were four, and they seem to be minor ones. Petitioner's Supplemental Record Appendix, no. 9 (Justice Giannini at bench conference, July 26, 1976).