Court Opinion

ID: 4949051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 12:46:00.245846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:14.663831
License: Public Domain

[1] OPINION
[2] This matter comes before us on a petition by Chief Judge Albert E. DeRobbio of the District Court seeking that we review and adopt a report submitted by the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline (Commission) concerning alleged ethical violations that might have arisen in the performance of his prosecutorial function in the case of State v. Ralph Byrnes et al.; tried in the Superior Court during the year 1976. This case was better known as the "Bonded Vault Robbery" case. We have examined the report of the Commission which found that Chief Judge DeRobbio committed no violations of the canons of ethics nor caused his office serious disrepute by any of his actions as the prosecutor in the bonded vault robbery trial. We have further examined the record upon which these findings have been based and agree that the findings of the Commission are overwhelmingly supported by the direct and credible evidence. We append the report of the Commission to this opinion, marked as appendix A and adopt its findings and rationale. The inquiry in respect to possible ethical violations arose out of the following circumstances.
[3] On August 14, 1975, the bonded vault robbery took place in the City of Providence. As stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, nine masked men entered the commercial safe-deposit company, robbed its employees at gunpoint, then broke into 146 safe-deposit boxes. It was believed that the robbery produced approximately four million dollars in cash and other valuables. The case was tried during the summer of 1976, and John F. Ouimette (Ouimette) was convicted of one count of conspiracy and one count of aiding and abetting the robbers. In fact the evidence indicated that Ouimette had planned and masterminded the enterprise though he was not present at the scene of the crime. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. One of the principal witnesses at trial was Robert J. Dussault, who testified that he had been a career criminal for twenty years. Ouimette and his co-defendants, Ralph Byrnes and Charles Flynn, appealed to this court. Their appeal was denied in State v.Byrnes, 433 A.2d 658 (R.I. 1981). In support of their appeal the defendants raised eight issues. None of these issues included any complaint that the criminal record of Dussault or his plea *Page 1241 
agreement with the state had in any way been concealed from them.
[4] However, in 1982 Ouimette sought a reduction of his life sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion for reduction was heard before a panel of three judges of the Superior Court. In the course of this hearing, Ouimette admitted his guilt in respect to the robbery under oath in the following terms:
 "I — I'm going to be a little nervous, you'll have to excuse me, but as far as the robbery, I am guilty of the robbery. As far as the money part, that's not true. There was no millions of dollars. I don't have no money when I get out to go away, whatever people think. The truth of the matter is, there was no million dollars taken to my knowledge, and that is the truth. Uh, I mean, it's been built up over the past years. Now it's up to four million. The first time it was two, three, now it's up to four, and that is just not the truth.
 "I'm sorry about what happened in the robbery. I'm sorry both to the boxholders and especially to the employees in the place.
 "And I have changed. I think jail was the right thing for me at the time. I think I learned a lot from being there. I had a lot of time to think, and I got to know myself a little better — a little bit better, I should say."
[5] Thereafter, John A. Murphy, Esquire, who had assumed the prosecutorial duties in the case after the appointment of Judge DeRobbio to the District Court, asked the following questions and received the following answers.
 "Mr. Murphy: Do you make this admission of guilt freely and of your own volition here today?
"Mr. Ouimette: Yes.
 "Mr. Murphy: And you make it knowingly? You feel okay today?
 "Mr. Ouimette: I feel very good. Not about the robbery. I feel bad about that. That was the worst thing that ever happened in my life. It was bad, and I, surely, I did get off on the wrong road somehow, but now I know I'm on the right track and I'm starting to get a little education and I feel — I feel good about that. Not the robbery; that was bad."
[6] After the completion of the hearing Ouimette's sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to forty-five years imprisonment with fifteen years suspended.
[7] Such a solemn judicial admission of guilt would normally preclude the raising of any issues, constitutional or otherwise, that might be asserted in respect to the validity of his conviction. See e.g., United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (precludes raising issue of double jeopardy); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (waives relief regarding composition of grand jury); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) (precludes collateral relief in respect to a coerced confession); Brady v. United States,397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (relief precluded even if admission of guilt motivated by a desire to avoid death penalty or to obtain a lesser sentence).
[8] Nevertheless Ouimette sought post-conviction relief in the Superior Court based on prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose to Ouimette during the course of the trial the complete criminal record of Robert J. Dussault. This claim was denied by a justice of the Superior Court on the state's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed the summary judgment, noting that the prosecutor Albert DeRobbio had not failed to comply with Rule 26.1(d) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure in that he had turned over to counsel for Ouimette a "rap sheet"1
that listed four convictions, two of which were misdemeanors. DeRobbio stated in open court that this "rap sheet" was the only record he had but admonished counsel for the defendant that it might not *Page 1242 
be complete. Prosecutor DeRobbio made the following statement:
 "`May I indicate, that the docket I gave [defendant's counsel] is — the best of my knowledge, may be complete, but it does not indicate on that docket as to whether he was robbing a bank or how many banks he robbed during that period of time, or maybe it's a complete report. It was only given to [defendant's counsel] as to information that was within a file that was available to us. That report may not have been complete. But I'm not responsible for completeness of record.'" Ouimette v. Moran, 541 A.2d 855, 857 (R.I. 1988).
[9] This court held that although it later became known that Dussault had a number of other convictions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prosecuting attorney DeRobbio had fulfilled his obligation under Rule 26.1(d).2 It should be noted that Ouimette did not seek discovery from the state under Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, was not entitled to discovery from the state save what might be in the possession of the prosecutor pursuant to Rule 26.1(d). In our opinion the prosecutor was not obliged to search out additional records of conviction beyond those he might have had in his file. This is particularly true in light of the fact that Dussault and Ouimette were well acquainted with each other, Dussault was also known to counsel for defendant.
[10] Subsequent to the denial of his state application for post-conviction relief, Ouimette sought habeas corpus relief in the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An evidentiary hearing as well as discovery was ordered by a federal magistrate-judge. This magistrate-judge made a series of factual findings, all of which were incorporated into the judgment of the Federal District Court3 and adopted by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Among these findings were numbers 13 and 14, which read as follows:
 "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.
 "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 on the Bonded Vault trial."
[11] As a result of these findings and their adoption by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Chief Justice of this court asked the Commission to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the findings from the point of view of ethical violation. It is not the function of this court to review the factual findings of the Federal District Court or its magistrate-judge. It is not our function to review the legal determinations of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit. Nevertheless, when an opinion of either *Page 1243 
court impugns the integrity of a member of the Rhode Island judiciary, it is both our prerogative and our responsibility to investigate the allegations underlying the accusation of ethical misconduct in the discharge of our role as the disciplinary authority with jurisdiction over members of the Rhode Island Bar and Judiciary.
[12] In the discharge of this obligation we have reviewed the record of testimony elicited before the federal magistrate-judge as well as the sworn testimony received by the hearing subcommittee of the Commission. A careful review of both records discloses not one shred of direct evidence that prosecutor DeRobbio deliberately withheld information known to him concerning the criminal record of Dussault. He relied upon a record obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and admonished counsel that it might not be complete. Evidence was elicited before the magistrate-judge from various police officers that additional knowledge of a criminal record may have been available to them. There was no evidence that they turned this information over to prosecutor DeRobbio save an inference based upon past practice. The magistrate-judge expressed some skepticism about the failure of memory of the police officers. In our opinion diminution of memory after fifteen years is not remarkable.
[13] We believe, as did defense counsel, that prosecutor DeRobbio would have had no motivation to fail to disclose additional convictions on the part of a witness who had been presented candidly as a career criminal. The incremental effect of these additional convictions would have been minimal. In our opinion the magistrate-judge piled inference upon inference to find a deliberate violation on the part of a prosecutor who was doing his best to discharge his obligation in a lengthy and complex trial. He focused upon an admittedly incomplete record, a minor element in a complex trial, and expanded it into a deliberate constitutional violation, as well as a breach of the principles of the Magna Charta (whose framers in 1215 never even vaguely imagined discovery in criminal cases, or the limited obligations under Rule 26.1(d)).
[14] We are persuaded by the uncontradicted evidence elicited by the hearing subcommittee of the Commission together with the direct evidence elicited before the federal magistrate-judge that prosecutor DeRobbio committed no ethical violation.
[15] For the reasons stated, we accept the report of the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline and find that no ethical violations were committed by prosecutor DeRobbio in respect to the Dussault criminal record or in respect to the tape-recorded agreement reached between the prosecution and Dussault.

 APPENDIX A
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS COMMISSION ON
 JUDICIAL TENURE AND DISCIPLINE
 In re: Albert E. DeRobbio
 REPORT
 December 4, 1991
 CHRONOLOGY
 On August 14, 1975, a robbery took place in the City of
Providence at the Bonded Vault Company.
 On that morning, Robert Dussault, accompanied by several
masked gunmen, entered the private vault service located at 101
Cranston Street. The bandits pried open approximately one hundred
(100) safe deposit boxes and from them took cash, coins,
diamonds, silver, gold and other valuables. The loot was placed
in several duffle bags and carted away by the robbers. The
estimated value of property taken exceeded two million dollars.
The daring daylight robbery was acknowledged by law enforcement
officials, (Providence Journal — November 2, 1975) to be the
second largest cash robbery in the history of the United States.
 The day in question was the thirtieth (30th) anniversary of
the end of World War II but also could be remembered as the
beginning battle in a legal odyssey which
 *Page 1244 
best could be called
the "Saga of the Bonded Vault". The legal war between the
defendants and prosecutors has gone on for over fifteen (15)
years. Battles have been waged in the Rhode Island Superior Court
and Supreme Court, as well as the United States District Court,
the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme
Court.
 The Superior Court trial, which lasted for ten weeks and
resulted in the convictions of several defendants, was the
longest jury trial in a criminal case ever held in Rhode Island.
The trial attracted intense media coverage, due in large part to
the nature of the charges and the fact that armed and uniformed
State Police troopers were stationed in the courtroom and
throughout the Providence County Courthouse.
 The prosecutor for the state was Assistant Attorney General
Albert E. DeRobbio, the chief of the Criminal Prosecution Unit,
who had served in that position under three Attorneys General.
Prosecutor DeRobbio was also assisted by a young attorney, John
A. Murphy, who had joined the Department of Attorney General the
previous year. The defendants were represented by veteran and
experienced criminal defense counsel both from Rhode Island and
Massachusetts. John Ouimette was represented by Attorney John F.
Cicilline, a prominent criminal defense attorney.
 The trial was acrimonious and heated with frequent procedural
motions made by defense counsel. During the hot summer months of
that Bicentennial year, the trial consumed all of the working
hours of the Prosecutor. Compounding the heavy workload,
DeRobbio suffered a personal tragedy when his father died during
the course of the Bonded Vault trial.
 This was a period in our legal history in which it was
fashionable as a trial tactic, to attempt to bait the prosecutor
or judge to commit error in order to cause a mistrial or new
trial on appeal. The most notable example of this tactic was the
trial of the "Chicago 8" held in the United States District Court
in Illinois.
 During the Bonded Vault proceedings in the Superior Court,
frequent personal and derogatory remarks were directed at the
prosecution team by the defendants. In fact, a review of the
6,000 page transcript discloses that the defendants, during the
trial, filed several motions seeking a mistrial on the grounds of
prosecutorial misconduct.
 In August of 1976, almost a year-to-date of the actual crime,
the Jury returned a verdict finding that the robbery was
masterminded and planned by John Ouimette. The trial justice
sentenced Ouimette to a term of life imprisonment.
 Upon appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, defendant
Ouimette engaged the services of not only Attorney Cicilline but
also Attorney William M. Kunstler. Mr. Kunstler had gained
national notoriety for his participation in various and highly
publicized trials, most notable of which was the "Chicago 8"
trial.
 In December 1976, four months after the trial concluded,
Prosecutor DeRobbio was appointed an Associate Judge of the Rhode
Island District Court. Special Assistant Attorney General John A.
Murphy then assumed responsibility for the case.
 Defendant Ouimette, nevertheless, was not successful in his
appeal (State v. Byrnes, 433 A.2d 658) and the verdict and
sentence by the trial justice was upheld.
 Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion under the provisions
of Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure to
reduce his sentence. Defendant Ouimette was successful in this
quest when a three-judge panel reduced his sentence from life to
45 years with 15 years suspended.
 It is very significant to note that during the course of
these proceedings, defendant Ouimette, under oath, admitted that
he took part in the robbery and shared in the proceeds.
 Still, not satisfied with the sentence reduction, defendant
Ouimette filed in the Superior Court a motion for post conviction
relief. As a basis of his motion, defendant Ouimette alleged
prosecutorial
 *Page 1245 
misconduct by Prosecutor DeRobbio and judicial
misconduct by a member of the three-judge panel.
 The trial justice in Superior Court saw no merit in the
petition and granted the state's motion to dismiss. The defendant
once again appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court and the
action of the Superior Court was upheld (Ouimette v. Moran,
541 A.2d 855).
 After the denial of his request for relief by the Supreme
Court, the defendant then moved to the Federal District Court
where he filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus based upon the same
allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that were raised in the
state court system. On December 28, 1988, the state and the
defendant consented to have the matter heard by a
Magistrate-Judge in lieu of a hearing by the United States
District Court Judge.
 The Magistrate-Judge granted defendant Ouimette's motion to
obtain discovery from the State including taking the deposition
of Chief Judge Albert E. DeRobbio (former Prosecutor DeRobbio).
The granting of discovery in Habeas Corpus proceedings is
somewhat uncommon. Moreover, after discovery was obtained,
affidavits and briefs filed, the Magistrate-Judge sua sponte
(at the request of neither party), ordered that an evidentiary
hearing be held. As a result, various police officers who were
members of the prosecution team that assisted the Prosecutor
DeRobbio, were called to testify in the Federal Court. The
witnesses were examined by both counsel as well as the
Magistrate-Judge who took an active role in questioning certain
witnesses.
 As a result of the hearing, the Magistrate-Judge made
fourteen (14) findings of fact contained in a strongly worded
thirty (30) page decision. The decision is highly critical of the
prosecution of defendant Ouimette and concludes that Ouimette was
denied a fair trial. In his decision, the Magistrate-Judge
ordered that Ouimette be unconditionally released from the
custody of the State of Rhode Island.
 Unconditional release is a highly unusual remedy, especially
considering that the defendant in post-conviction relief
proceedings, admitted his guilt.
 Furthermore, the exact allegations of prosecutorial
misconduct raised before the Federal Court were heard and denied
by the Rhode Island Superior and Supreme Courts (Ouimette v.
Moran, 541 A.2d 855).
 In August of 1991, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
requested that the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline
conduct an inquiry into the alleged prosecutorial misconduct
since the former prosecutor was now the Chief Judge of the Rhode
Island District Court.
 At its September meeting, the Commission voted to conduct a
preliminary investigation into the matter. A subcommittee was
appointed in accordance with the provisions of § 8-16-4 of the
General Laws. The Commission Chair appointed Associate Justice
Raymond E. Shawcross of the Rhode Island Family Court to serve as
Chairperson of the subcommittee and Speaker of the House of
Representatives Joseph DeAngelis and Senator David Kerins as
members.
 Chief Judge DeRobbio was not a party to the proceedings in
the Federal Court. He was not called as a witness and had no
opportunity to call or question witnesses on his own behalf.
Therefore, the subcommittee determined it appropriate that in
fairness to Chief Judge DeRobbio and due to the seriousness of
the allegations that the entire issue should be thoroughly
reviewed and not limited to the findings of the Magistrate-Judge.
 The subcommittee, upon being appointed, met and began the
arduous task of compiling and reviewing all of the relevant
documentary evidence. Pertinent portions of the 6,000 page
transcript of the trial were obtained and reviewed. Moreover, the
subcommittee read the briefs of both parties submitted to the
United States Federal District Court and the First Circuit Court
of Appeals. The entire transcript of the proceedings before the
Magistrate-Judge was carefully analyzed. The decisions of the
various courts which heard the matter
 *Page 1246 
were read and analyzed. In
addition, the subcommittee has reviewed the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari presented to the United States Supreme Court in
November of 1991, by the Attorney General.
 Once all of the documentary evidence was considered, the
subcommittee began the process of interviewing individuals who
were not presented as witnesses in the proceedings in the Federal
District Court.
 The following individuals were interviewed under oath:
1. Chief Judge Albert E. DeRobbio
 — District Court of Rhode Island
2. Attorney John Austin Murphy
 — Former assistant to Prosecutor
 — Represented State in appellate proceeding
3. Attorney John F. Cicilline
 — Trial Counsel for Defendant Ouimette in 1976
4. Deputy Attorney General Walter Gorman
 — Represented Rhode Island in the Federal Court
 proceedings
5. Special Assistant Attorney General Caroline C. Cornwell
 — Represented Rhode Island in the Federal Court
 proceedings
 All subcommittee interviews were conducted in the presence of
a certified court stenographer. A complete transcript of all of
the interviews has been placed in the file of the Commission on
Judicial Tenure and Discipline.
 ISSUE
Does the alleged conduct of The Honorable Albert E. DeRobbio, and
his handling of the prosecution of the Bonded Vault Trial in 1976
violate any provisions of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or does
said alleged conduct bring his judicial office into serious
disrepute?
 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 The specific allegation of prosecutorial misconduct that has
been levied against Judge DeRobbio is that he withheld the
complete record of previous criminal convictions of the state's
star witness, Robert Dussault from defense counsel. Dussault, the
lead robber of the gang who entered the Bonded Vault premises,
was a career criminal; well-known in both law enforcement and
underworld circles. He had escaped from a Massachusetts prison
only one month prior to the robbery. Within days after the
robbery, he was identified as one of the gunmen based upon
information developed by the Rhode Island State Police. By
October 1975 he was indicted by a Grand Jury and a nationwide
alert was issued for his arrest.
 Of some interest is that just prior to the robbery, Dussault
contacted defendant Ouimette's trial attorney inquiring of the
whereabouts of Ouimette. This apparently occurred while unknown
to the attorney, Dussault was an escapee. Moreover, the same
attorney visited Dussault in a Massachusetts prison previously at
Dussault's request when he was seeking legal advice on a petition
to reduce his sentence. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude
that defendant Ouimette and his attorney had some familiarity
with the notable criminal record of Mr. Dussault.
 Moreover, after Dussault's indictment, the Providence Journal
published a profile of him on November 2, 1975. The newspaper
article quoted Massachusetts officials and other law enforcement
sources concerning Dussault's lengthy criminal record and his
propensity for large cash robberies.
 On January 2, 1976, Dussault was apprehended by Las Vegas,
Nevada police. Once arrested, he told the local police that he
wished to cooperate with Rhode Island law enforcement authorities
by giving information on the Bonded Vault robbery. Informed of
the arrest, a contingent of State and Providence Police Officers,
along with the Assistant Attorney General Albert E. DeRobbio,
arrived in Las Vegas the next day to interview Dussault.
 A video taped confession was obtained wherein Dussault gave
specific details of the planning and commission of the Bonded
Vault robbery. He agreed to testify against his confederates and
Assistant Attorney
 *Page 1247 
General DeRobbio, on behalf of the State,
entered into an agreement by which Dussault would not serve any
prison time for the robbery. Furthermore, Prosecutor DeRobbio
agreed to intercede with Massachusetts officials in connection
with Dussault's escape. The agreement is set forth in detail on
the video tape. A review of the video tape transcript indicates
that Assistant Attorney General DeRobbio made no guarantee that
Dussault would not have to serve additional time in
Massachusetts.
 The Federal Magistrate-Judge in his decision found that the
video tape was never provided to defendant Ouimette. This finding
is contradicted by the Superior Court transcript as well as the
recollections of Prosecutor DeRobbio and Attorney Murphy. The
trial justice ordered that the entire video tape be made
available to the defendant and as a result it was played in its
entirety for defense counsel in the courtroom during the course
of a luncheon recess.
 Before the trial began in the Spring of 1976, another of the
robbers, Joseph Danese, in addition to Dussault, agreed to
testify as a witness for the State. Dussault testified
unequivocally that he was a career criminal. He stated that he
led a life of crime for at least twenty (20) years; had served
prison time and was an escapee from a Massachusetts prison at the
time of the Bonded Vault robbery.
 As part of trial strategy, defendant Ouimette filed no
request for pre-trial discovery. Therefore, under the provisions
of Rule 26.1 of the Superior Court of Criminal Procedure, the
state was mandated to provide defendant Ouimette with "a written
statement of all criminal convictions of the witness that are
known to the attorney for the state or are contained in the files
of the Attorney General's Division of Criminal Identification."
Prosecutor DeRobbio complied with the rule by giving the defense
a copy of the Federal Bureau of Identification (FBI) "rap sheet"
listing Dussault's criminal convictions. The rap sheet did not
contain the complete list of Dussault's criminal history. The
State Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI), had no record of
Dussault since he had never been arrested in Rhode Island.
 A more accurate and complete record of Dussault's criminal
history was on file with the Massachusetts Department of Public
Safety, Bureau of Identification. Other than the Bonded Vault
robbery, all of Dussault's arrests occurred in Massachusetts.
 On July 26, 1976, during the Superior Court trial, a bench
conference took place while Dussault was testifying. At that
time, Assistant Attorney General DeRobbio informed the trial
justice and defense counsel that the FBI report "may not be
complete." The trial justice remarked that he thought that it was
unusual that the report listed only four (4) convictions when the
witness testified that he had been in and out of jail for twenty
(20) years and was a career criminal. Prosecutor DeRobbio stated
that he was not responsible for the completeness of the record
but only required to give defense counsel the information that he
had in his possession. Defendant Ouimette's trial counsel
requested that the prosecutor furnish him with the entire record.
This colloquy covered about one page of a 6,000 page transcript.
It was never mentioned again on the record by either the trial
justice, Prosecutor DeRobbio or defense counsel.
 It is undisputed that the complete history of criminal
convictions was never supplied to defense counsel.
 When the issue was raised in the State Courts, as a basis for
Defendant Ouimette's post-conviction relief, the Rhode Island
Supreme Court ruled that a review of the transcript discloses
that Assistant Attorney General DeRobbio "did not misrepresent
the completeness or reliability of the witness' record of
convictions," (Ouimette v. Moran, 541 A.2d 855). In a
deposition given on November 18, 1989, as a part of Ouimette's
discovery for the Writ of Habeas Corpus proceeding, Chief Judge
DeRobbio clearly and unequivocably stated that he gave to the
defense counsel the only record of Dussault's convictions that he
had in his possession. In his sworn interview before the
Commission's
 *Page 1248 
Subcommittee, Chief Judge DeRobbio once again,
stated emphatically he forwarded to the defense, the only record
he had in his possession. He denied withholding any information
on Dussault's criminal background, stating that he never had the
Massachusetts "rap sheet." He further informed the Subcommittee
that throughout his career as a prosecutor, it was his policy to
freely exchange whatever information, concerning witnesses, he
had in his possession with defense counsel. Chief Judge DeRobbio
reiterated his position that Dussault was presented to the Court
as a career criminal; a "bad guy," part of a gang of robbers and
bandits who committed the second largest cash robbery in history.
Chief Judge DeRobbio said that there would be no reason for the
State to downplay or whitewash Dussault's criminal convictions.
 Attorney John Austin Murphy testified that he had no contact
with Chief Judge DeRobbio in several years. He stated that he had
great respect for Judge DeRobbio's fairness and integrity. His
position as an Assistant to the Prosecutor at the Bonded Vault
Trial is where he first became acquainted with Judge DeRobbio.
Attorney Murphy found Prosecutor DeRobbio to be a dedicated
professional with a tremendous appetite for hard work and long
hours. According to Attorney Murphy, Prosecutor DeRobbio worked
seven (7) days week during the course of the trial.
 Murphy never saw any indication of DeRobbio's withholding of
information from defense counsel. He further stated that he never
saw the Massachusetts "rap sheet" during the trial nor does he
recall it ever being an issue that defense counsel were
requesting additional information on Dussault's criminal
background.
 Murphy presented the subcommittee with a large black binder
which he said contained 639 pages of handwritten notes. These
notes were taken by Murphy during the trial as part of his duties
in assisting the prosecutor. After a review of the notes, it was
determined that there was no information contained therein that
would be of assistance to the subcommittee. Specifically, no
mention is made of the need for further information on Dussault's
criminal record.
 Attorney John F. Cicilline, in his interview with the
Subcommittee, stated that he had known Prosecutor DeRobbio
professionally for several years before the Bonded Vault Trial.
Among the criminal defense bar, Attorney Cicilline reported that
Prosecutor DeRobbio had a reputation as a tenacious prosecutor.
However, his tenacity was matched by his integrity and fairness.
Attorney Cicilline reported that DeRobbio was the most vigorous
and determined prosecutor he ever faced in trial, but also
pointed out that he was as fair as he was tough.
 While Attorney Cicilline stated that he accepted the
conclusion of the Federal Court "that information was withheld
from defense counsel at the time of the trial," he does not
believe that Prosecutor DeRobbio had any part in withholding said
information. Attorney Cicilline speculated that there would be no
motivation for the Prosecutor to withhold the information when
the information could have been easily obtained and the risk of
nondisclosure could lead to the conviction being overturned. In
Attorney Cicilline's opinion, it was the police who withheld the
information not only from the Defense but from Prosecutor
DeRobbio as well.
 Deputy Attorney General Gorman and Special Assistant Attorney
General Cornwell both testified that they had been involved with
the Federal Court proceedings for some time and knew of no direct
evidence which indicates that Chief Judge DeRobbio was involved
in any prosecutorial misconduct. Deputy Attorney General Gorman
stated that quite frankly, he did not believe that Chief Judge
DeRobbio was involved in any impropriety in the Bonded Vault
trial.
 The Subcommittee found that Chief Judge DeRobbio's testimony
before the Subcommittee to be credible and convincing. The
findings of the Federal Court and as a result the subsequent
publicity have obviously caused Chief Judge DeRobbio a
 *Page 1249 
great deal
of pain and anguish. The Federal Court decision has besmirched
his otherwise unblemished record as a Prosecutor.
 However, in our judgment, there is not a shred of direct
evidence that Chief Judge DeRobbio was aware of or withheld the
complete criminal history. On the contrary, it is apparent that
he disclosed to defense counsel in open Court that there may be a
problem with the FBI "rap sheet" on Dussault. He never
misrepresented the criminal record but rather stated that the FBI
"rap sheet" was the only record in his possession.
 The findings of the Federal Court are inconsistent with Chief
Judge DeRobbio's reputation and character. The witnesses
interviewed by the Subcommittee, who did not testify in the
Federal Court proceedings, are supportive of Chief Judge
DeRobbio's position. While there may be circumstantial evidence
that may lead to the conclusion that the prosecution team could
have been more diligent in providing the complete record;
considering the entire circumstances of the trial, it is unfair
and unjust to conclude that this indicates any ethical violation
by Judge DeRobbio.
 The Subcommittee based upon a complete and thorough inquiry
into the matter is unable to find that Prosecutor DeRobbio was
personally involved in or sanctioned any prosecutorial misconduct
in the Bonded Vault trial. Chief Judge Albert E. DeRobbio has
served as a member of the Judiciary for fifteen (15) years with
significant and substantial responsibilities. He has been a
productive, conscientious and energetic Judge.
 The Subcommittee finds no evidence that Chief Judge DeRobbio
has violated any provisions of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or
caused his office serious disrepute by any of his actions as the
Prosecutor in the Bonded Vault trial.
 We therefore, recommend that the inquiry be closed and that
both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and The Honorable
Albert E. DeRobbio be informed of this action and copies of this
decision be forwarded to them forthwith.

1 The "rap sheet" was a criminal record obtained by the prosecutor from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2 The Rhode Island discovery rule is extremely liberal, but it provides for mutual discovery. Under Rule 16(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant who seeks any discovery under subdivision (a) of the rule must provide extensive discovery to the state upon request. Therefore, a decision on the part of a defendant not to seek discovery is an important strategic decision. The fact that co-defendants may have sought discovery is irrelevant under our rule to the obligation of the state in respect to a defendant who has chosen not to seek discovery.
3 In this case the federal magistrate-judge was exercising the full authority of the District Court by agreement of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West Supp. 1991).