[Indictment No. P1/90-0883A, Case State v L'Heureux] Ronald L'Heureux was charged with murder in 1989 and after a jury trial with Judge Famiglietti presiding, Mr. L'Heureux was found guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
The benchmark for manslaughter under these circumstances calls for a sentence of five to seven years. Judge Famiglietti said she didn't believe Mr. L'Heureux testified truthfully at trial and departed from the benchmarks sentencing Mr. L'Heureux to 30 years in prison with ten years suspended and ten years probation.
In 1992, Mr. L'Heureux filed a Pro Se motion to vacate his sentence asserting the state had violated Brady v Maryland 373 US 83 (1963) by failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence [i.e. evidence favorable to Mr. L'Heureux] which had been specifically requested. A motion to vacate the sentence, a motion for a new trial and a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence was filed by court appointed attorney Lisa Geschiedt.
Mr. L'Heureux asserts evidence favorable to his case including photographs, audio tapes and fingerprints had been in possession of Detective Lieutenant Thomas Harris. Yet this evidence was destroyed and/or never turned over when Mr. L'Heureux's attorney, William Dimitri Jr., requested all exculpatory evidence be turned over. In 1994 the police witness claimed the photos and negatives no longer existed or couldn't be found even under subpoena. Yet, in February 1999 witness Suzanne Baptista testified to procuring the photographs and "liberating" the negatives from the same police department. Prosecutor Randal White blamed Mrs. Baptista for not getting this evidence before trial and a similar rationale was used to deny L'Heureux's motion for a new trial. Also, when the Rehoboth police finally cooperated and turned over the audio tape, the tape had been erased.
Mr. L'Heureux asserts prosecutors deliberately withheld evidence and unexpectedly dumped some of it on L'Heureux's counsel at trial to create a trial by ambush and to allow themselves to procure perjury from at least three witnesses. [See similar conduct in the DiPrete case and the infamous Narcotics Strike Force.]
In May 1993, Judge Famiglietti vacated the sentence imposed on Mr. L'Heureux. Subsequently, Judge Famiglietti denied both motions for a new trial in 1994 and Mr. L'Heureux was re-sentenced.
In 1996, the Rhode Island Supreme Court remanded this case to the Superior court to re-litigate an issue raised for the first time on appeal by the State. The State had conceded to withholding evidence at the motion for a new trial, but on direct appeal provided a patently perjurous affidavit to the RI Supreme court from trial prosecutor Joshua Wall. The statements made by Prosecutor Wall during opening statements at trial directly contradict his affidavit to the RI Supreme Court. The Chief appellant prosecutor, Aaron Weisman, utilized and gave credence to Prosecutor Joshua Walls' perjurous affidavit before the Supreme Court arguing Prosecutor Wall turned over the specifically requested evidence and did no wrong. The Superior and RI Supreme court continue to ignore this deception despite being told about it. The Attorney General's Chief Counsel, Randal White, also had no problem with the deceptive conduct of Prosecutors Wall and Weisman and according to Public Defender Mary McElroy, Randal White still opposes bail for Mr. L'Heureux.
A 1998 motion that raised all the Constitutional sins of this case was never properly heard as requested. In 1998, Mr. L'Heureux filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the RI Supreme Court due to inordinate delay and to ensure he was pursuing all remedies and issues including the issues raised by the Supreme Court remand. The Supreme Court deferred ruling on the Habeas Petition and ordered the remand heard in "a reasonable time following 4-2-1998."
During this time all attempts at getting a remedy in Federal Courts were unsuccessful. The Federal Court's rationale is Mr. L'Heureux does not have a final decision from the state court and Mr. L'Heureux has been unable to get the state court to render a final decision. This is one of the reasons Mr. L'Heureux has appealed to the US Supreme Court [Case 98-8526, 98-8527]
Ronald L'Heureux asserts he has been denied due process and equal protection of law for speaking out against the judicial system in both state and federal courts. ( See Complaint one) Mr. L'Heureux asserts the following wrongdoing regarding his case in federal court:
Magistrate Robert W. Lovegreen deliberately manufactured procedural errors to dismiss complaints for the "insiders" [i.e. the Attorney General's office and/or the Department of Corrections]. Mr. L'Heureux, a pro-se litigant, has overturned Lagueux's and Lovegreen's prior decisions [(95-2194) 125 F 3d 841(1st Cir.1997)]. Aside from Lovegreen's full knowledge of Mr. L'Heureux's illegal incarceration, when L'Heureux caught the Attorney General's Andrea J. Mendes lying to him regarding the withheld evidence and the Attorney General's knowledge thereof back in 1995, Lovegreen and the Attorney General's Elizabeth Wallace condoned and refused to address gross civil rights violations by the DOC's Maximum Security staff Captain Leo Ashton, Warden Whitman and others. This was done to teach a lesson to anyone who speaks the truth against the "insiders"( See similar retaliation against Amelia Edwards by the R.I. Supreme Court)
In L'Heureux v. Ashton [95- 409], after being dismissed and remanded by the First Circuit (76 F 3d 370 1996), Lovegreen allowed the Attorney General's Elizabeth Wallace to interfere with a factually accurate affidavit from the law librarian, Angela Osterberg, and allowed Ms. Wallace to submit a deliberately deceptive affidavit to dismiss the case again. Ms. Wallace also submitted a perjured affidavit from Captain Leo Ashton. Both Lovegreen and Chief Justice Ronald Lagueux refused to sanction Ms. Wallace or charge Captain Leo Ashton and Ms. Wallace with perjury. In the past when Captain Leo Ashton submitted perjurous affidavits to the court, a just Magistrate Jacob Hogopian informed Attorney General Jeff Pine's office of the crime. But again Ms. Wallace nor Attorney General Jeff Pine would prosecute this perjury.
Lovegreen ignored the true facts in this case which were supported by properly executed affidavits of L'Heureux's witnesses. Lovegreen, who is supposed to accept affidavits as truthful, would ignore or dismiss Mr. L'Heureux's affidavits as irrelevant or untruthful while accepting the state's perjurous affidavits as "gospel truth" in order to justify his procedurally illegal conduct. Lovegreen dismissed the case again refusing to enforce state law that the R.I. Supreme court said in L'Heureux v State DOC, 708 A 2d 529 552 (RI 1996) must be enforced in federal court.
In total disregard of state law and a federal permanent injunction, Lovegreen found that it is proper for the staff at Maximum Security to retaliate against Mr. L'Heureux by abusing disciplinary procedures. Examples of retaliation include but are not limited to:
As unbelievable as it may seem, Chief Justice Lagueux adopted Lovegreen's findings and dismissed the case.
Also, Elizabeth Wallace deliberately withheld letters and documents in discovery, then came up with "some" of them at a deposition. The documents she withheld proved another DOC agent committed perjury in his affidavit that she also prepared. Under R.I. I. G.? 11-33-1(a) Ms. Wallace's conduct is felonious, and carries a sentence of twenty (20) years.
When these same facts regarding Captain Leo Ashton's unethical conduct came before Judge Richard Israel on 1/28/97, Judge Israel strongly suggested that Elizabeth Wallace get out to the prison and find out what is going on. Judge Israel also suggested that instead of defending the DOC, perhaps the A.G. should be prosecuting them.
The Attorney General's division was given most of this information regarding this conduct via James R. Lee [head of the Civil Division in the AG's office] on 3/24/99, yet Ms. Wallace and the A.G. ‘s office continues to defend the DOC in an obvious conflict of interest. The A.G's main function is to enforce and uphold the law for all citizens, not defend " insiders" at taxpayers expense. No action was ever taken against Ashton or Wallace to our knowledge.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals seemingly has declined twice prior to enforce the equal protection clause for Rhode Island citizens. The Supreme Court, and Superior Court Judge Francis Darrigan refuse to enforce state law in the quoted Motion For Reconsideration. We will also update this complaint with the court's response.
Now comes the Plaintiff/Appellant Ronald L'Heureux, and respectfully requests this court to reconsider the above entitled matter en banc as this courts decision is not only inconsistent with prior decisions of this court but is directly at odds with the United States Supreme courts decision and Federal Statutory law. This court's decision violates Apellant's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
This court has deliberately avoided this issue of a lack of remedy to address State law in State court, as the Rhode Island district court has repeatedly done. Under Article VI. of the United States Constitution this court has a moral responsibility to uphold the law for everyone equally and consistently.
Appellant, is appalled and outraged by this court's statement that L'Heureux's quest to find his right to redress of his grievances (1st Amen.) and due process and equal protection of State law "frivolous. …Plaintiff's meritless and irrelevant appellate arguments cast no doubt on the dismissal." So in reality what this court does not have is the fortitude to come right out and state in simple English that both the State and Federal courts have L'Heureux literally between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and that's where you want to keep him and all similarly situated prisoners. L'Heureux cannot address his state law claims in State court, (See L'Heureux v. State DOC, 708 A. 2d 549, 552) nor can he address them in Federal court. ( See Cugini v. Ventetuolo, 781 F. Supp. 102, aff'd 966 F. 2d 1440) These claims and lack of remedy were addressed in the RI District court by Magistrate Robert Lovegreen. He apparently, like this court, has chosen for the second time to avoid the issues and thereby violate L'Heureux's Constitutional rights as briefed fully. See Brief at 8-11.
Apparently Judge Bruce M. Selya (of course coming from R.I.), Michael Boudin, and Sandra L. Lynch think justice is a joke for prisoners. The unanswered question for this Honorable court is will judges Jaun R. Torruella, (Chief Justice) Norman H. Stahl, Kermit Lipez, Bailey Aldrich, Frank M. Coffin Levin H Campbell, Hugh H. Bownes and Conrad K. Cyr, uphold L'Heureux's Constitutional right to redress of his grievances as mandated by section 1983 and it's own decision in Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F. 2d 504 511, or condone this blatant violation of constitutional rights, now apparently by this very court! This court stated in Lynch:
"Indeed, one purpose for enacting section 1983 was to provide a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167,176"
In simple layman terms, is this court going to enforce the law equally, or close it's eyes again, and thereby preclude Rhode Islanders who really want to clean up this state from doing so?