WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - A Delaware judge has dismissed a murder indictment against an alleged gang member after finding that prosecutors violated his constitutional rights by seizing confidential attorney-client communications from his prison cell days before his trial was to start.
In a ruling Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Andrea Rocanelli said prosecutors did not apply for a search warrant and did not notify a judge or Jacquez Robinson’s attorney before directing investigators and prison officials to seize the documents from his cell last year. Even after the search and seizure, prosecutors failed to notify the judge or defense attorney.
Prosecutors claimed the search was necessary to determine whether the defense attorney had violated a protective order by revealing the names of prosecution witnesses to Robinson.
But Rocanelli noted that prosecutors conceded that they never provided any witness names to Robinson’s court-appointed attorney, Natalie Woloshin. The judge also expressed concern, based on testimony by an investigator, that prosecutors may have engaged in similar conduct in other cases.
“While the court is mindful that dismissal is an extreme remedy, no other remedy will adequately and effectively address the Sixth Amendment violation for this defendant,” Rocanelli wrote.
A spokesman for Attorney General Matt Denn said Wednesday that the Delaware Department of Justice disagrees with the ruling and has filed a notice of appeal.
“As indicated in the state’s answering brief in the case, the actions taken by prosecutors and investigators in this case were taken based on multiple corroborated statements, in order to determine if a possible violation of a protective order had occurred and, if so, if the safety of witnesses or the integrity of an upcoming trial had been compromised,” DOJ spokesman Carl Kanefsky wrote in an email, adding Robinson had allegedly claimed “he had seen information he was not supposed to see.”
Woloshin described the ruling as a “real vindication.”
“It was very disheartening when the state violated my client’s rights based on the unsubstantiated allegations against me,” Woloshin said in a statement issued by the Office of Defense Services.
Robinson was charged in the November 2014 killing of Malik Watson, 18, in New Castle. Watson was shot just weeks after Robinson had been arrested in connection with another shooting that left a 19-year-old Wilmington man wounded.
Robinson was among 13 alleged members of the Touch Money Gang, a violent Wilmington street gang, who were later indicted for a host of crimes, including six killings. A previous indictment for Watson’s killing was incorporated into the broader gang indictment.
According to Rocanelli’s ruling, a senior prosecutor authorized the seizure of documents from Robinson’s prison cell on June 30, 11 days before the scheduled start of his trial. Prosecutors purportedly were concerned, based on an interview with an inmate informant, that Robinson may have obtained the names of prosecution witnesses, violating a protective order that had been issued in the gang prosecution case.
The documents were reviewed by a paralegal working for the prosecution team, rather than a “taint team” of outside prosecutors not working on the Robinson case, Rocanelli noted. The judge said the paralegal directly reviewed Robinson’s attorney-client communications and learned details of his defense strategy, then continued working with trial prosecutors on the case.
Prosecutors argued that they did not need a warrant to search Robinson’s cell, noting another judge’s previous refusal to suppress a drawing that had been seized earlier from Robinson’s cell and which appeared to contain gang-related symbols and mottos. The judge who issued that ruling noted that, under the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, an inmate has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell.
“The state fails to appreciate the substantial differences between Fourth and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence and the difference between a drawing and privileged attorney-client communications,” wrote Rocanelli, who described the actions of state officials as a profound affront to the rule of law.
“The state has ignored the fundamental importance of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel and the attorney-client privilege, has demonstrated a disregard for defendant’s constitutional rights, and has exhibited a cavalier approach to the proceedings addressing its conduct,” Rocanelli added. “The state’s misconduct requires a significant consequence.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.