Sentence not the issue in Pleau case

Although it may be surprising to see tiny Rhode Island in a legal fight with the U.S. Justice Department over the custody of an accused murderer – a battle that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – in many ways it befits the state’s unique political geography.
Few other liberal-leaning states in the country have an independent governor with both an aversion to the death penalty and the strong belief in states rights that comes from a long career as a Republican.
And so Rhode Island has proven to be the appropriate testing ground in Pleau v. United States for a debate about whether the federal government has overstepped its authority in the way it prosecutes suspects already in state custody.
“It could have a very important national significance – there is a serious federalism question about the relation between the state and federal governments,” said Andrew Horwitz, associate dean of academic affairs at Roger Williams University Law School about the Pleau case. “I am not surprised that the issue hasn’t come up before. It is a bold stance by the governor that politically has more risk attached than benefit.”
The case revolves around the prosecution of Jason Pleau, who stands accused of shooting a gas station attendant to death in the course of a robbery outside a Woonsocket bank. The victim was trying to deposit $12,500 in gas station receipts.
After Rhode Island charged Pleau with murder and while he was being held at the state Adult Correction Institute in Cranston, the Justice Department indicted him on federal charges and announced that it intended to seek the death penalty in the case. The alleged crime is subject to federal prosecution because it took place during a bank robbery.
To try Pleau, the Justice Department requested temporary custody under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, an interstate compact approved by Congress establishing a standardized procedure when prisoners face charges in multiple states. The federal government is also a party to the agreement.
Designed to expedite and streamline the temporary prisoner transfer process, the Detainers Act also gives the governor of the state being asked to turn over a prisoner the chance to refuse. On hearing that the death penalty was at stake, Pleau challenged the transfer and R.I. Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee denied the Justice Department’s request under the Detainers Act.
Pleau, who pleaded not guilty, had indicated he would change his plea in state court in exchange for a life sentence and no federal prosecution.
Blocked from using its usual procedure, the Justice Department sought, and was granted, a federal court order to transfer Pleau to U.S. custody. He is now being held in the federal Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center in Central Falls while awaiting a trial scheduled to begin in September 2013.
But neither Pleau nor Chafee accepted this outcome and appealed the court order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
A First Circuit panel ruled in Pleau’s favor, then was overruled by the full court in a split decision citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the principal that a state cannot override a federal court order.
Now Pleau and Chafee are appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that once the federal government is denied custody under the Detainer’s Act, it should not be allowed to sidestep the denial with a court order.
“The federal government wants to have its cake and eat it too,” wrote Patricia A. Millett of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP in Washington, D.C., in Rhode Island’s appeal, “enjoying all the benefits of the Detainers Act’s expedited and harmonized processes for detainers, while invoking the [court order] to avoid its obligations and responsibilities codified in federal law.” Akin, Gump is representing Rhode Island pro bono.
In a statement explaining the decision to appeal, Chaffee called it a “significant states’ rights matter” and said if the federal government is treated differently than the states “it is in the best interest of all states to know that is the case immediately.”
Chafee’s statement did not mention the death penalty, and Rhode Island’s rejection of it, as he has in earlier explanations of the importance of fighting Pleau’s transfer to federal custody. Only a handful of cases appealed to the Supreme Court each year are heard by the high court, but Horwitz at Roger Williams Law said the Pleau case could make it because the court has shown an interest in federalism questions.
“It has a chance,” Horwitz said. “[The court]] wouldn’t want a death penalty case, but federalism issues are of interest. This is a death penalty case that’s not really about the death penalty.”
On what would happen if Rhode Island wins, Horwitz said it is unlikely to cause too much upheaval to the criminal justice system, because federal prosecutors still have the option of getting a prisoner transfer without using the Detainers Act. If they had imagined Chafee’s response, the Justice Department could have sought a court order for Pleau in the first place that wouldn’t have given Chafee the chance to appeal.
Congress also has the option of removing the federal government from the Detainers Act.
On the merits, Horwitz said Rhode Island seems to have a decent case, because the federal government appears to be seeking “a second bite at the apple.”
Christopher Gontarz, a criminal defense attorney in Middletown and chairman of the Rhode Island Criminal Law Bench Bar Committee, said even if the federal government loses, the practical impact should not be overly large.
“It will delineate what the federal powers are under the Detainers Act, but in the end that is mostly procedural,” said Gontarz, who added that the appeal was in some ways uniquely Rhode Island.
As for the political implications, Brown University political science Professor Wendy Schiller said the case cuts both ways for Chafee.
“I am not sure it will work for him, because a lot of people are horrified by [Pleau’s alleged] crime and, even if you are against the death penalty, you aren’t going to have sympathy,” Schiller said. “But it does shore up Rhode Islander’s belief that Chafee does things on principal, that he is doing this because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. I don’t think he is doing this for political reasons. He’s an apolitical guy – that’s one of his weaknesses.” •

No posts to display