Broccoli v. Moran, 90-5359 (1995)
This text of Broccoli v. Moran, 90-5359 (1995) (Broccoli v. Moran, 90-5359 (1995)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
He seeks to perpetuate the testimony of three potential witnesses in the event of success on his appeal.
Mr. Gary C. Crossen appeared and testified at the trial of the plaintiff's application on its merits. He conducted grand jury proceedings at which James Bennett testified. The record of Mr. Bennett's grand jury testimony was available to the plaintiff at trial and is already part of the record on appeal. The plaintiff does not show what further or additional testimony of either Mr. Bennett or Mr. Crossen he seeks to perpetuate. Finally, the plaintiff has no knowledge of the present whereabouts of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. James A. Ruggiero was counsel for the plaintiff at his trial and during all post-conviction proceedings up to the entry of final judgment and the plaintiff's claim of appeal. The plaintiff does not suggest what testimony of Mr. Ruggiero he seeks to perpetuate.
For all of the foregoing reasons the plaintiff's motion is denied.
The defendant shall present an appropriate Order for entry on five day's notice to the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Broccoli v. Moran, 90-5359 (1995), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broccoli-v-moran-90-5359-1995-risuperct-1995.