Randy needs your help

continued from home page...

Shortly into the trial, a voir dire hearing was held.  The Complainant testified that the ex-boyfriend had not raped her as she had previously testified to at the June 27, 1995 probation hearing but, that a week after the alleged “attempted” rape by the ex-boyfriend, she decided to have a consensual sexual relationship with the ex-boyfriend.  According to the Complainant, the sexual relationship between her and her ex-boyfriend took place from May 1994 until December 1994.  The ex-boyfriend testified, as he had at the violation of probation hearing, that he neither had raped her nor did he have any sexual intercourse with her.  For unknown reasons, trial counsel withdrew his Rule 26.3 motion to impeach the credibility of the Complainant.
          The State’s sole piece of evidence at trial was the word of the Complainant.  The State had neither an eyewitness nor physical nor medical evidence that a crime occurred.
          The State, via the Complainant, alleged that on March 9, 1995, at 3:00 p.m., she was forced to perform oral sex on Randy.  Her testimony was that she began crying and continued to cry until 3:30 p.m. when she heard the horn from her father’s truck.  She ran out of Randy’s house and got into her father’s truck. 
          The Assistant Attorney General, Steve Regine, then put the father on the stand to confirm that he picked up his daughter at 3:30 p.m. at Randy’s house.  He confirmed that he had.  Under cross-examination, he stated that she came out of the house and got into the truck.  He further testified that he did not see any sign that something was wrong, that she was not, nor did she appear to have been crying, and that he would have noticed signs had she been upset.  The father stated that they left Randy’s house and drove to his family’s restaurant. 
          The State then presented testimony that, on March 12, 1995, while en route from her grandmother’s house to her father’s house, Randy drove her to a beach and sexually digitally penetrated her, where she was vaginally all cut up, torn apart, and left bleeding through her clothes.  According to the State, the assault happened between 8:30 p.m. and 8:50 p.m., and that it took ten minutes from the beach to her father’s house, so she got home at 9:00 p.m.  Upon arrival at home, she learned a cat fell out a window and everyone, including Randy, looked for the cat.  Randy drove around the block and went home. Randy lived ten minutes away.  This time frame would put Randy home between 9:10 to 9:15 p.m. 
          Randy’s defense was that, on the early morning of March 12, 1995, he attended Lakewood Baptist Church until the end of church services.  After church he drove to his in-laws in Coventry, Rhode Island.  He remained there with his wife, Donna, her daughter (the Complainant), and the in-laws, Joan and John, and no one left the house all day.  Shortly after 2:00 p.m., everyone sat down to eat dinner.  Everyone (Donna, Joan and John) testified that they were in the presence of the Complainant and Randy all day.  While Randy and John watched the NCAA basketball games in the TV room, Donna, Joan and the Complainant were alone in the kitchen.  Randy and the Complainant both appeared normal, and she never said anything about a sexual assault that allegedly took place on March 9, 1995, just three days prior.  
          At about 5:30 p.m., Randy and Complainant drove to Rob Robertson’s studio.  Rob is Randy’s stepbrother.  In a separate car, Donna drove to the studio in front of Randy.  Both vehicles arrived at the studio at the same time.  Randy and the Complainant left the studio at 7:00 p.m. and he drove her home, without making any stops.  It would take 30 minutes from the studio to the house.  Donna and Rob both testified that Randy left the studio with the Complainant at 7:00 p.m., and Donna stated that, shortly after she got home, Randy got home from dropping Complainant off at her father’s house.
          As part of Randy’s alibi, Home Confinement was called to testify.  Home Confinement is an electronic ankle bracelet monitoring system, part of Rhode Island’s probation program.  A representative from Home Confinement testified that, on March 12, 1995, Randy left his home at 9:00 a.m. and returned at 7:31 p.m. and did not leave again until 9:00 a.m. on March 13th. 
          After both sides rested and the case was sent to the jury, the jury requested a re-reading of the definition of “reasonable doubt.”  Shortly after the re-reading of the definition of reasonable doubt, the jury came back with a verdict of guilty of Count 1 and not guilty of Count 2.  Early in January of 1999, Randy was sentenced to sixty years, forty years to be served in prison with the remaining twenty years suspended.  The forty years is to be served consecutively with the eighteen years left on the 1991 breaking and entering conviction, making Randy’s sentence fifty-eight years.  He is currently fifty-four years old and will complete his sentence in 2049.
          After a series of appeals, all of which were denied, Randy came into possession of a medical examination report of the Complainant which was generated on June 15, 1995.  The report shows that, as late as June 15, 1995, twelve days prior to her taking the stand and accusing an ex-boyfriend of rape at his home in May of 1994, she was still a virgin.  Her hymen was still intact, with no signs of any sexual trauma, tears, scars or abrasions.  She did, however, write in her patient intake information claim to be sexually active.  Because the medical examination revealed she was still a virgin and unable to tolerate an inner vaginal examination/patient hypersensitive, it clearly meant that she had lied when she testified at the violation of probation hearing. 
          The State had failed to turn over a copy of the medical examination report when trial counsel had filed the Rhode Island Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 discovery motion.  It was later learned that the State had received a signed Medical Records Waiver form to obtain the records.  Randy filed a Post Conviction Application with the courts alleging a discovery violation citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), as well as a host of Rhode Island cases governing discovery.  One most importantly was State of Rhode Island v. Wyche, 518 A.2d 907 (1986) in which the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated that, if the State has “oral knowledge” that a particular piece of evidence exists, it has a duty to furnish the defense with a copy; failure to do so triggers a discovery violation.  In all of Rhode Island’s discovery violation cases, they mention that, if the State fails to turn over favorable evidence in a criminal trial, the Supreme Court shall grant a new trial regardless of the degree of harm caused.
          A request for appointment of counsel was granted by the Court and a hearing was held on May 17, 2010, before the trial justice.  After defense counsel completed his discovery violation arguments, the State’s Assistant Attorney General, Steve Regine, admitted that the State had been in possession of the medical examination report waiver form but claimed that no one moved to obtain a copy.  He argued that the State did not violate the rules of discovery since they did not have physical possession of her medical examination report.  Defense counsel, citing State v. Wyche, informed the Court that “oral knowledge” is possession.  The Court, despite the clear language in Wyche, denied defendant’s petition for post conviction relief.  Randy appealed his case to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, convinced that, based on State v. Wyche and the admittance by the Assistant Attorney General, Steve Regine, that the State had a medical waiver form and had knowledge of the medical examination report but had not furnished defense with a copy, the Rhode Island Supreme Court would follow the language in Wyche and order a new trial, but it did not despite the clear violation and the State’s admittance that it had knowledge, be it orally.  Randy filed a Supreme Court Rule 25 Motion for Rehearing, citing the fact that the Court misconceived State v. Wyche when it denied his appeal.  The Court again denied the case.  It is now 2016, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court still cites State v. Wyche in discovery cases so it is not as if Wyche has been overturned.  Why the Courts choose to select in which cases Wyche applies and which cases it does not is a mystery.  Clearly, the Court picks and chooses who receives justice.
          After the Motion for Rehearing was denied, Randy filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C §2244 with the Federal First Circuit to file a second habeas corpus petition under Rules-Section 2254 Cases - Rule 9 which was denied.
          Randy then filed another 28 U.S.C. §2244 petition, citing an actual innocence claim.  He contended that the State’s whole case was based on the credibility of the Complainant and, as it turns out, the medical report proves that she had the propensity to accuse others of sexual abuse.  She convincingly told classmates, Randy, and the presiding justice that she was raped by her ex-boyfriend.  She wrote in the May 5, 1995 police statement that she was having or had previously been sexually active.  She wrote in the medical intake that she had had sex with the use of condoms.  At trial four plus years later, she testified that the ex-boyfriend did not rape her but “attempted” to but she decided to have a consensual sexual relationship with him about a week after the attempted rape.  Had the trial counsel had a copy of the medical report, he could have used it to impeach her credibility, and the jury hearing Randy’s case would have heard all these claims and seen the medical examination report.  Counsel would have clearly asked the jury to ask themselves, “why would a person claim to have been sexual with the use of condoms if she was a virgin?”  Because Randy’s jury had asked to be re-read the definition of “reasonable doubt,” had they received all this information, her credibility would have been worthless.  There is no way all twelve jurors could have found Randy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!
          Why would she tell the Warwick Police that she was sexually assaulted?  Because her father, whose family is life-long friends with members of the Warwick Police, called upon his friends with this tale to obtain joint custody of the Complainant so that her mother, Donna, and Randy could not leave Rhode Island and move to New Hampshire.  Donna had been awarded full custody of the Complainant in 1990, and, at no time, did the father move for joint custody until he learned that Randy and Donna were planning to move to New Hampshire, taking the Complainant with them.  He filed for joint custody on March 9, 1995, the same day the Complainant claimed that she was sexually assaulted at Randy’s house.  This is why Randy, with no evidence, has been sitting in a prison cell for over twenty years. 

Can you help?