Decades-Old Conviction Reversal Sustained On Appeal Due To Brady Violation

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the grant of habeas relief to a convicted defendant as a result of the prosecution’s failure to disclose evidence in the notorious Raymond “Beaver” Tempest, Jr.  murder case.

Seventeen days before trial, [witness] Carrier provided the state’s former prosecutor with two novel statements: (1) that [defendant] Tempest’s brother, Gordon Tempest (Gordon)—who was a detective with the Woonsocket Police Department at the time of the murder—hid the murder weapon (a pipe) in a closet on the first floor at 409 Providence Street in an effort to conceal it so as to protect his brother; and (2) that, on the day of the murder, Tempest’s children were “excited” about getting a puppy.  In response to receiving these statements from Carrier, the former prosecutor wrote in his notes: “more new info re: [Gordon Tempest] putting pipe in closet + dog for the kids—too late—don’t volunteer new info—will cause big problems.” Tempest argues that the former prosecutor deliberately failed to disclose this favorable evidence, and that such a deliberate nondisclosure automatically entitles him to a new trial…

it is our opinion that the “high value” of Carrier’s new statements to the defense could not have escaped the former prosecutor’s attention; thus, for this reason as well, his failure to disclose the statements constitutes a deliberate nondisclosure.

The court

As we have already pointed out, the suppressed statements could have been used to impeach Carrier’s testimony even further. Carrier was one of four less-than-stellar witnesses (and arguably the most credible of the four) who testified that Tempest confessed to the murder. Had her testimony been further undermined, and her credibility perhaps crushed altogether, certainly there is, at the very least, a reasonable probability—one “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome”—that the verdict against Tempest would have been different. See Wearry, 136 S. Ct. at 1006 (holding that “[b]eyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in [the] conviction” when a witness’s credibility, “already impugned by his many inconsistent stories, would have been further diminished” by the revelation). Contrary to what the dissent suggests, whether the defense would have actually used the statements is not relevant to our analysis—the bottom line is that it should have been defense counsel’s choice to make…

In coming to our decision today, we are cognizant of the fact that, thirty-four years ago, two young women were brutally beaten, and we remain mindful of the impact that this ordeal has had on the victims and their families. Yet, our justice system requires that the state bear the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, see, e.g., State v. O’Brien, 774 A.2d 89, 100 (R.I. 2001), and it must do so within the confines of the law. When the state exceeds those confines, it must suffer the consequences.

Justice Goldberg dissented

The 1982 brutal murder of Doreen Picard (Picard)—not unlike the attempted murder of Martha “Sunny” von Bulow, see State v. von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995 (R.I. 1984)—ranks as one of the most infamous crimes committed in this state during the last century. The fact that no arrest was made for several years was a festering sore in the community, compounded by a cover-up by sworn police officers. The majority affirms the hearing justice’s grant of postconviction relief—which vacates a twenty-four-year-old conviction for this murder—solely on the basis of the prosecution’s deliberate nondisclosure of two statements (the Carrier statements) of Donna Carrier (Carrier), one of four trial witnesses to whom Raymond Tempest Jr. (Tempest) confessed. In his seventy-eight-page decision, the hearing justice devoted a grand total of two-and-a-half pages to this issue, including the factual background, the governing legal standard, and his analysis relating to this evidence. This issue demanded more than the cursory treatment it received in the Superior Court and by the justices of this Court on appeal, such that I can only conclude that this decision is a manifest injustice.

After conducting a thorough examination of the relevant factual background and analysis of the issue within this Court’s deliberate-nondisclosure framework, I am convinced that the hearing justice clearly erred in finding that the nondisclosure of the Carrier statements was a deliberate nondisclosure as that concept is defined under our law. Moreover, I am of the opinion that the majority, in reaching a contrary conclusion, improperly supplements the inadequate factual findings of the hearing justice with findings of its own in order to reach a result that is not supported by our jurisprudence and is a marked departure from well-settled law. It is not the business of this Court to make factual findings in a nonjury case. Therefore, I respectfully dissent…

Tempest received a fair trial. His conviction should not be disturbed. The Picard family has been deprived of what little justice they received in 1992, ten years after they buried their young, innocent daughter.

The Call called the earlier decision to grant relief the local story of the year and noted

Tempest is the brother of former Woonsocket police detective Gordon Tempest, who was fired following his conviction on perjury charges related to sworn statements he made about his brother’s involvement in the homicide. He is also the son of the late Raymond Tempest Sr., who was the former second-in-command of the Woonsocket police and the sitting high sheriff for Providence County when the murder took place.

The court had affirmed the conviction in 1995. (Mike Frisch)