Court sets date for Tempest arguments
Supreme Court will hear appeal on overturned murder conviction
WOONSOCKET – Oral arguments in the state’s appeal of a lower court ruling that overturned Raymond D. “Beaver” Tempest’s 1992 murder conviction will take place before the Supreme Court on March 31.
The state’ high court entered an order setting the date, which hasn’t been added to the published calendar of court events yet, according to Craig Berke, spokesman for the judiciary.
The hearing marks the beginning of what may be the last chapter in Tempest’s bid to clear his name after spending more than 23 years in prison for 1982 bludgeoning murder of Doreen C. Picard.
Tempest, 63, was released on bail last September after Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Procaccini ruled that he did not receive a fair trail and void- ed his conviction. In a lengthy decision, Procaccini said that the state prosecutor who handled the case unlawfully withheld evidence and Woonsocket police officers who investigated the case employed improperly suggestive techniques when they questioned witnesses.
The decision came after Tempest pressed his claims of innocence in a proceeding known as a hearing for post-conviction relief in which he was represented pro bono, or free, by a team of Boston-based lawyers from the New England Innocence Project.
State prosecutors are hotly contesting the result, however. In their appeal to the high court they argue, in part, that Procaccini erred by allowing Tempest to raise certain claims so late that it’s no longer possible to refute them. One of state’s key bones of contention is that, during roughly 24 years that have passed since Tempest went to trial, at least nine prior or potential witnesses they could have used to rebut Tempest have died.
The state also asserts that Procaccini also allowed Tempest to retry claims that were already explored during his trial, a maneuver that isn’t allowed under the rules of evidence governing the proceedings for post-conviction relief.
Tempest originally filed for post-conviction relief in 2004, arguing that newly discovered DNA evidence would prove he was innocent. But after exhaustive analysis of the physical evidence culled from the crime scene, Procaccini ruled in his 78-page decision that the results were irrelevant.
Against the objections of state prosecutors, Procaccini allowed Tempest to remain free on bail pending the out- come of the appeal to the high court – on several conditions. He was required to post $100,000 surety bail, wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and remain in a courtapproved domicile except to attend religious services and visit with doctors or lawyers. His address is not a public record, according to the Division of Probation and Parole, which is responsible for monitoring home confinement inmates.
Procaccini’s decision was not a declaration of innocence for Tempest, but by vacating the conviction, the judge said he once against enjoys the presumption of evidence, much as anyone who is merely accused of a crime. Technically, Tempest remains under indictment for Picard’s murder.
If the Supreme Court upholds Procaccini’s decision, the state could decide to retry Tempest for the homicide – more than 34 years after the fact.
Picard – the belle of the Bellingham High School prom a few years prior to her death – was murdered in the basement of 409 Providence St. on Feb. 19, 1982. Prosecutors argued that she had been pummeled with a length of pipe and strangled with her own sweater when she stumbled upon Tempest beating her landlady in a feud over a pit bull puppy. During the trial, a series of witnesses testified that Tempest confessed to them that he had committed the crime but that his family members with ties to law enforcement would make sure he never got in trouble.
In April 1992 a Superior Court jury convicted Tempest of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to serve 85 years in prison and, according to his lawyers, has repeatedly forsaken opportunities to seek parole because he refuses to admit to a crime he did not commit.
After the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case, it’s unlikely a decision would follow in a few days or even a few weeks. More likely, the high court won’t decide for months whether to uphold or vacate Procaccini’s ruling after lawyers make oral arguments on appeal.