Ouimette v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Finding No. i: The Court finds that the prosecution team had full knowledge, before the trial of petitioner Ouimette, that Robert Dussault confessed to committing an armed robbery in New York City. The prosecution agreed, with Dus-sault, to speak on the latter’s behalf concerning this crime. This agreement with Dussault was in part to induee him to testify in the Bonded Vault trial. No disclosure of this was made to petitioner’s counsel at trial. Finding No. 5: The Court finds that the prosecution team, which included the Rhode Island State Police and the Providence Police had full knowledge, before the time of petitioner’s trial, of the following crimes committed by Dussault subsequent to the Bonded Vault robbery: a crime of housebreaking and safe break in Coventry, Rhode Island and a crime of armed robbery of a coin store in Seek-onk, Massachusetts. The prosecutor in the Ouimette case agreed to assist Dus-sault to avoid the serving of prison time for the pending mentioned crimes.... The prosecutor’s offer of help ... was never made known to Ouimette’s attorney or to co-defense attorneys at the Bonded Vault trial. Finding No. 6: The Court finds that the prosecutor in the Bonded Vault trial was personally aware in January 1976 that Robert Dussault admitted to robbing the Mechanic’s National Bank in Worcester, Massachusetts. This robbery occurred subsequent to Dussault’s participation in the Bonded Vault robbery ... [and] was known to the prosecutor several months before Ouime”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ouimette v. Moran

2. “Finding No. 8: The Court finds that the evidence adduced on hearing shows that in 1968 Robert Dussault was sentenced to a term of fifteen to thirty years in the Massachusetts state prison and that he was paroled on this sentence to allow him to serve a consecutive sentence in the Greenfield County House of Correction. Dussault escaped from the Greenfield County House of Correction in 1975 ... [with] approximately twenty-one years remaining to serve ... Dus-sault has never been called upon to resume serving any portion of his Massachusetts state prison sentence. Yet, Massachusetts authorities were aware of Dussault’s location in Rhode Island after his arrest by Rhode Island authorities. Rhode Island authorities negotiated and obtained from Massachusetts authorities a termination of the balance of Dus-sault’s Massachusetts state prison sentence, a remission of fifteen to thirty years imprisonment ... not made known to the petitioner. The non-disclosure was calculated to induce Dussault’s testimony against Ouimette in the Bonded Vault trial and the same was not disclosed to petitioner at trial. Finding No. 9: The prosecutor agreed to help Dussault dispose of the escape charge, of which he was accused, from Greenfield County House of Correction and the remainder of the Massachusetts House of Correction jail sentence. In furtherance of that goal, the prosecution negotiated with authorities in Greenfield County, Massachusetts and made Dus-sault available to those authorities to tes”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ouimette v. Moran

3. “B. Prior convictions undisclosed: FELONIES: 1) 07-07-58 Attempted larceny, auto — 6 months HOC, 2 years probation 2) 09-21-59 Break and enter — 6 months jail 3) 12-05-62 Att. to commit larceny — 2 months 4) 08-05-64 Larceny — 21/2-3 years 5) 09-16-66 Assault on a police officer — 3 months 6) 09-16-67 Armed robbery 7) 09-16-67 Armed robbery 8) 04-04-68 Armed robbery 10-12 years 9) 04-04-68 Accessory before the fact of armed robbery 10-12 years 10) 04-04-68 Accessory before the fact of armed robbery while masked and disguised— 10-12 years 11) 04-04-68 Armed robbery while masked and disguised — 10-12 years 12) 04-04-68 Armed robbery — 7-10 years 13) 04-04-68 Armed assault to rob — 10-12 years 14) 04-04-68 Armed robbery — 10-12 years 15) 04-04-68 Armed robbery — 10-12 years 16) 10-20-72 Auto theft 17) 01-14-73 Escaped from confinement — 1 year MISDEMEANORS: 18) 09-03-58 Interfered with police signal system — 30 days jail 19) 02-25-60 Druijk — 30 days HOC & 1 year probation 20) 02-25-60 Disturbing the peace — $10.00 fine 21) 07-03-61 Property damage — $25.00 or 25 days 22) 01-25-65 Drunk — $10.00 fine 23) 10-25-65 Mai. injury to property— $25.00 fine 24) 10-25-66 Disturbing the peace — guilty, filed”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ouimette v. Moran