First Circuit Court Rules the State of Rhode Island Cannot Prevent Federal Prosecution of Jason Pleau from Going Forward
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 3-2 that the state of Rhode Island cannot refuse to deliver Jason Pleau “into federal custody to answer the federal indictment” resulting from his alleged role in the murder of David Main in Woonsocket (h/t Katie Mulvaney).
The court’s opinion touches on a number of technical issues in the law, in particular, the nature of interstate compacts and the obligations of states under the “Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act”, ultimately reaching the conclusion that state prison cannot be used as a sanctuary from Federal charges…
Were Pleau and Governor Chafee to prevail, Pleau could be permanently immune from federal prosecution, and the use of the efficient detainer system badly compromised. He is currently serving an 18-year term in Rhode Island prison and, if the writ were denied, might agree to a state sentence of life in Rhode Island for the robbery and murder. Footnote Even if Pleau served only his current 18-year term, needed witnesses for federal prosecution could be unavailable two decades from now. Instead of a place of confinement, the state prison would become a refuge against federal charges.Comments from people familiar with criminal law are, of course, welcome.
Now watch as Holder drops the death penalty and we all pay for this scumbag for the next 50 years.
Progressives-feces that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
I guess I am missing some background. Usually, murder is not a federal crime. So, why do the feds want him?
Warrington,
The first paragraph pretty much covers their jurisdiction:
“A federal grand jury indicted Jason Pleau on December 14, 2010, for crimes related to the September 20, 2010, robbery and murder of a gas station manager making a bank deposit in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (robbery affecting commerce); id. § 1951(a) (conspiring to do the same); id. § 924(c)(1)(A), (j)(1) (use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence resulting in death).”
I would say maybe now we can get on with the business of fixing the state but we have no one in office capable of that task.
I am glad the inbred watery eyed nitwit got bitch slapped by the court,but don’t hold your breath.
This US Attorney’s office declined to take a position on whether in state tuition is a benefit-can you imagine them going for the death penalty?
Max D,trying to understand this. The first two fall under the Congressional regulation of commerce clause? Don’t understand why the last one isn’t a state matter? I don’t know much of anything about this but it’s interesting.
Is the third charge Federal because of Federal Insurance? FDIC?
The FDIC coverage puts in in the federal purview.
If you steal from an interstate shipment it’s a federal crime too.
A lot of crimes fall under dual jurisdiction.
helen,
If you mean the firearms charge, yes, you could be charged in both the state and the federal system. The firearms offense is actually the offense that makes it a death penalty case on the federal level.
Let me see. Murder is a state offense. The FDIC was created when, 1933? Midwesern gangs were getting a lot of face time with bank robberies. Local police where hampered by competency and state borders. So, let’s make it a federal crime. That’ll show them.
There are over 300 bank roberies a year in the Boston area. Now, there are 365 days in a year. Knock off weekends and there are about 260. So, more than one bank robbery per day. Another success for federalization of a state crime.
I used to favor the death penalty. Recent DNA evidence showing wrongful convictions may have altered my thinking.
“Instead of a place of confinement, the state prison would become a refuge against federal charges.”
I’m ambivalent about the death penalty. But this conclusion by a majority of the First Circuit Court seems very reasonable and insightful.
A member of the U.S. Attorney’s office explained to me that they have historically conferred with the A.G.’s office to see which set of statues will result in a harsher penalty when there is concurrent jurisdiction. For example, for unarmed bank robbery, the state penalties are usually stronger, but for armed bank robbery, the Federal Guidelines usually result in a longer sentence. I’m not sure if this is the first time that arrangement has broken down.
“I used to favor the death penalty. Recent DNA evidence showing wrongful convictions may have altered my thinking.”
Like Monique, count me as ambivalent to the death penalty. That being said, I don’t think you can argue the decision based on any moral approach. I find it ironic that our Governor bent over backwards when the US Attorney slammed the door shut on compassion centers. Instead, he challenges the US Attorney on the fight to prevent a cold blooded killer from facing the death penalty. Only in Rhode Island.
I should also point out that in most cases of bank robbery, the state and local police are the lead investigators. The exceptions would be serial bank robbers, teams of robbers, the highly armed, and/or where there is a body count. Then you may have a team of agents assigned. In most common cases where junkies hold up a bank with a note in one hand and the other in their pocket, all you get is a phone call from one agent asking for the details.
Dan, you comment causes me to wonder who is doing the “judging”.
While all bank robberies are similar, they are all different.
Might it not be the responsibility of state officials to shield their citizens when the federal penalties seem to harsh.
I am thinking of “armed robbery” with an unloaded gun. Perhaps armed robbery with a knife,when the tellers are behind bullet proof glass. How about a state citizen operating under a defeat of reason, but not homicidal?
I am troubled that the harshest penalty wins.
My suggestion calls for “judgment”, sorry.
I agree with Max that the difference between the Governor’s approach on this case and on compassion centers is telling.
“Recent DNA evidence showing wrongful convictions may have altered my thinking.”
I think it’s great that we have the DNA testing available now, for both directions. It will help to even more firmly convict the guilty and it will help to acquit the innocent. Both are good things.
If there is a no-doubt murderer with DNA evidence also pointing to a specific person, give ’em the needle.
ProJo reports this afternoon that U.S. Atty Neronha is saying the Pleau case “is not about the death penalty.”
Translation?
Feds aren’t gonna seek the death penalty after all (my hunch).
If they do back off, then they’ve just wasted everyone’s time and energy over nothing. If they’d done so sooner, Gov. Chafee wouldn’t have opposed turning the inmate over to them…… (which means it IS all about the death penalty!)
brassband,
I don’t think they’ll back off after serving notice. My guess is it’s on the table so Pleau will plead out for life without parole in which case it isn’t a waste of time. The only way he gets that in the state system is if he goes to trial, loses, and then gets the wrong judge. He was ready to plea in state court just to avoid rolling the dice with the feds. He’ll plead out in federal court because he knows if he takes it to trial and loses, he could get death with the wrong judge.
Would it surprise anyone if that was explained to Chafee and he chose to fight it anyway? Inquiring minds would love to know.
Max —
The decision whether to seek the death penalty lies with AG Holder, not US Atty Neronha.
Main Justice’s process for these decisions is highly bureaucratized.
When the indictment came down, I think the case was assigned to Judge Smith….not sure what his leanings are on the death penalty, but I don’t see any of these judges here as the “hangin’ kind” . . . well, maybe Judge Lagueux, but he’s on senior status.
So glad our tax money was spent trying to prevent the federal government from prosecuting a federal crime.
What’s next, suing to prevent the FAA from fining an airline?
Posted by Patrick
“I think it’s great that we have the DNA testing available now, for both directions. It will help to even more firmly convict the guilty and it will help to acquit the innocent. Both are good things.
If there is a no-doubt murderer with DNA evidence also pointing to a specific person, give ’em the needle.”
There are still a lot of crimes without DNA, exculpatory, or not. DNA is only proof positive in contact crimes such as rape. Otherwise it only proves a person was present at some time.
I think it is genreally known now that the FBI crime lab is in shambles and thoroughly unreliable.
“What’s next, suing to prevent the FAA from fining an airline?”
That or suing the federal gov’t for enforcing immigration law …. oh, wait, the federal gov’t isn’t enforcing … (cough)
Wait, I know! We could sue the DOJ for enforcing their federal cannibis laws! Yeah!!! Compassion centers here we come!
“The decision whether to seek the death penalty lies with AG Holder, not US Atty Neronha.”
brassband,
My point is they will seriously handicap their prosecution if they pull it off the table. Then yes, this will all have been a waste of time.