Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Former Providence, Rhode Island police officer Robert Huffman was sentenced by Judge Vogel to 60 years in State prison with 40 years to serve as a result of his conviction of rape in April of 2010. Huffman's Rhode Island criminal defense lawyers are likely to appeal Judge Vogel's ruling denying a motion for a mistrial made by defense counsel when the State failed to disclose notes of an interview with the alleged victim.

On appeal, it is likely Huffman's Rhode Island criminal defense lawyers will argue that the State's failure to disclose the notes of the investigating officer violated his right to a fair trial, effective cross examination and due process of law. The United States Supreme Court in the case of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) emphasized that a prosecutor which alone can know what is undisclosed, must be assigned the consequence and responsibility to gauge the likely net effect of all such evidence. The Whitley Court went on to state that an individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police.

As a Rhode Island criminal defense lawyer, it is hard to reconcile the judge's decision that the failure to disclose statements of the complaining witness did not prejudice the defendant. While counsel did have an opportunity to review the statements prior to cross examination, that opportunity was only a few days. Additionally, the trial judge stated that there was no harm to the defendant because the defendant did not reveal his trial strategy by making an opening statement. Had counsel had complete discovery from the State, counsel may have made an opening statement. Additionally, counsel was deprived of crucial material that would have shaped the trial strategy, may have lead to other avenues of investigation and altered the method of cross examination. Further, having material to view for months as opposed to days, allows counsel to reconsider and reformulate trial strategy which would certainly chance over time. In light of these factors, I would anticipate that the Rhode Island Supreme Court will grant Huffman a new trial.

The Rhode Island Public defenders office is sponsoring legislation that would reform eyewitness identification practices. Mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions according to the Innocence Project.

The Bill sponsored by the Rhode Island Public Defender's office would require that live and photographic lineups include filters that fit the suspect's height, age, race and other physical traits. Further, it would mandate that the witness be told not to assume that the perpetrator is in the line up. The Innocence Project has sponsored eyewitness identification legislation throughout the nation and aims to have lineups conducted by officers who do not know who the perpetrator of the crime is to avoid having the officer suggesting to the witness, either intentionally or unintentionally, who to pick through the officer's actions. As a Rhode Island criminal defense lawyer, the legislature should pass this bill to prevent wrongful convictions occurring in the State.

Cases of mistaken identification include the Duke Lacrosse case. There police provided the accuser with a lineup that included only Duke Lacrosse players. The three players were later cleared but not before being dragged through the legal system.

Another case of mistaken identification involved Ronald Cotton who spent 11 years in prison for rape when he was convicted based on a flawed identification procedure. Jennifer Thompson the victim in the case has advocated for eyewitness identification reform and was a speaker at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers eyewitness identification seminar.

In Massachusetts criminal cases, identification issues are addressed through a motion to suppress an identification as unnecessarily suggestive. In the leading case of Commonwealth v. Botelho, 369 Mass. 860 (1976), a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the procedures used to obtain the identification were so unnecessarily suggestive and were conducive to an irreparable mistaken identification so as to violate the defendant's right to due process of law and effective cross examination. Generally, identification issues arise in serious sex crimes, robbery cases or an assault case where the victim does not have a clear chance to see the suspect.