|
|
5.16.2001 00:24
Court silences
all parties in
pending case
BY TRACY BRETON
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE
-- The chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Ernest C. Torres, yesterday issued a sweeping gag order in the federal corruption case against Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. and his five codefendants.
The judge's order prohibits the mayor and the other defendants in the case, their lawyers, prosecutors, witnesses, potential witnesses, law-enforcement officials involved in the Operation Plunder Dome investigation, and court personnel from releasing information outside of that in the public record. It also restricts comment on the case.
The judge said the gag order will be in effect until final verdicts for all defendants are entered in the case. People caught violating the gag order could be held in contempt of court.
Also yesterday, Torres ordered Asst. U.S. Attorney Richard J. Rose, the lead prosecutor in Operation Plunder Dome, to appear before him June 26 to explain why he should not be punished for showing a secret FBI surveillance tape to his sister and two friends.
On June 26, the judge will also hold a hearing on the government's attempt to disqualify Boston lawyer Richard M. Egbert from acting as Cianci's defense lawyer in the case because of "possible conflicts of interest."
Egbert, at Cianci's recommendation, was hired by the city last year to represent it in a yet-to-be-filed civil rights/wrongful death suit by the estate of slain Providence police officer Cornel Young Jr.
More recently, the city paid Egbert $31,328 to defend Cianci in a now-settled federal civil racketeering and whistleblower's suit filed by Christopher J. Ise, a city planner who said he paid a $5,000 bribe to get hired. That allegation is now part of the criminal case against Cianci.
As part of a scheduling order, Torres, set yet another hearing for June 27 on a defense motion to determine who leaked an undercover tape in the case. Channel 10 (WJAR) recently aired a videotape that purportedly shows Frank E. Corrente, Cianci's former top aide, in his City Hall office, taking a cash bribe from the government's star witness, Antonio Freitas.
Torres's gag order came in the form of a six-page document issued shortly after lawyers in the corruption case met with the judge privately in chambers. The judge said he issued the order to ensure a fair trial in the racketeering/extortion case the government has brought against Cianci and the others who were indicted last month with him -- Corrente; the mayor's chief of staff Artin H. Coloian; Richard E. Autiello, a member of the Providence Towing Association; Edward Voccola, a convicted felon and owner of property leased to the School Department; and Joseph A. Pannone, former chairman of the Board of Tax Assessment Review.
"The purpose of this order is to protect the rights of both the defendants and the United States to a fair trial before an impartial jury by prohibiting the kinds of extrajudicial statements and disclosures that, if widely disseminated, would be likely to threaten those rights and the integrity of the trial process," Torres wrote.
"The need for this order arises from the intensive media coverage of this case," the judge said. "There have been a number of widely publicized disclosures and statements by individuals involved in this case which, if allowed to continue, would create a substantial risk of prejudicing the parties' right to a fair trial."
The gag order has the effect of not only silencing lawyers and witnesses in the case, but will also prevent the mayor from trying his case in the court of public opinion -- in such venues as the
Imus In The Morning radio show, on which he appeared shortly after his indictment and leveled attacks against members of the prosecution team and Governor Almond. Cianci proclaimed his innocence on the show and, when asked about the 30 criminal counts that have been lodged against him, said: "It's like Mario Puzo [the author of
The Godfather] wrote that indictment."
The judge's gag order follows a pattern that has developed in recent weeks of lawyers in the corruption case filing sealed documents with the court -- with no indication in the public record of the reason for sealing or even which party in the case is filing the material.
Torres, in yesterday's order, signaled that he might unseal at least some of the material the lawyers have filed to date -- saying that anyone who objects to his unsealing them must do so in writing by May 29.
Torres cited specific reasons for his gag order:
• The release and recent broadcast by Channel 10 of the undercover videotape that was supposed to have been kept secret -- only available for viewing by prosecutors and defense lawyers -- under an order issued by U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux. Torres does not describe the tape in his order -- referring to it merely as one "showing the activities of one of the defendants which was presented as evidence to the grand jury."
• The showing, by prosecutor Rose, of the videotape to several of his friends. Rose has admitted in court papers that he showed portions of the videotape to his sister and two friends, lawyer Casby Harrison III and his wife, Mary Sylvia Harrison.
• "Reports regarding the identities and testimony of witnesses appearing before the grand jury which were published in a local newspaper." The Providence Journal has published many such reports over the past two years, based on interviews with the witnesses after their testimony.
• Information the media received about the date on which the grand jury was scheduled to vote on the indictment "as evidenced by the fact that, on that day, the courthouse was surrounded by both local and regional television news camera crews."
• Published statements of various parties and/or their lawyers "commenting on or expressing opinions with respect to the evidence, the merits of the case, and/or the background and character of potential witnesses."
Torres said that such disclosures or statements could affect a fair trial in the case but "are also likely to cause parties who perceive themselves to be disadvantaged to respond by making countervailing disclosures and/or statements of their own, thereby further threatening the prosepct of a fair trial."
Gag orders, while virtually unprecedented in Rhode Island, have been issued in high-profile cases in recent years, including the civil trial of O.J. Simpson and the case of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who is awaiting execution.
Gag orders were also issued for a time in the federal sexual harassment case that Paula Corbin Jones filed against President Clinton and in a class-action lawsuit in a Florida state court against several tobacco companies to recover damages for diseases smokers claimed they contracted because of their addiction to nicotine.
Many gag orders were issued in the 1960s and '70s, in the wake of the murder case of Dr. Sam Sheppard, whose conviction was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 because the court ruled the doctor's trial was conducted in a "carnival" atmosphere akin to a "Roman holiday." The justices, in their decision, chided the trial judge for not imposing tighter control over the release of information in the case.
The nation's highest court said "the trial court might well have proscribed extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness or court official which divulged prejudicial matters. . . . Given the pervasiveness of modern communications and the difficulty of effacing prejudicial publicity from the minds of the jurors, the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused."
Torres's order does not prohibit parties in the Operation Plunder Dome case from disclosing "without further comment," material contained in the public court file or information presented in open court.
But everyone with a connection to the case is specifically prohibited from talking about "the character, credibility, reputation, alleged prior bad acts or criminal record of a party or witness;" the possibility of a guilty plea or any statement given by a defendant; the existence or results of any examination -- such as a lie-detector test -- given to a defendant; the identity, anticipated testimony or credibility of any prospective witnesses; any information given to the grand jury; and the contents of any documents filed under seal or sealed by the court or information about chambers conferences.
The order also bars the parties from stating any opinon about the merits of the case or from talking about anything that the lawyers know would be inadmissible as evidence in a trial that would, if disclosed, "create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial."
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Version
