or,
write to James Rodwell at PO Box 466, Gardner, MA 01440
DEFENSE
COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN AND USE DAVID NAGLE’S
COMPLETE
CRIMINAL/PROBATION RECORD.
As the
David
P. Nagle’s criminal record up to 1986
(not including 1990’s crimes) is as follows:
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY – GUN
DISPOSITION:
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE-
ARMED ROBBERY - SHOTGUN
DISPOSITION-
7/2/86 21-25YR CMTD STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
OFFENSE: ARMED ASSAULT TO ROB
DISPOSITION:
OFFENSE-
ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON
DISPOSITION:
OFFENSE-
ARMED ASSAULT TO ROB
DISPOSITION:
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY – BANK
DISPOSITION 1OYR CMTD
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION C
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY – MASKED
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY (ROB ARM)
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: C5/3/85 BO
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION-. C
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE:
LARCENY OF A MV
DISPOSITION- C
OFFENSE: KNOWINGLY REC. STOLEN PROPERTY
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: KNOWINGLY REC. STOLEN
PROPERTY STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: POSS HYPODERMIC OR SYRINGE
DISPOSITION;
N.C.
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
DF War STATUS:OPEN
David
Nagle was paroled in 1984 after a recommendation to the Massachusetts Parole
Board by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), for Nagle having worked for their
agency in New York City in 1982 and also in Massachusetts as an undercover
agent while being a prisoner at the County House of Correction in Greenfield,
Massachusetts.
After
Nagle’s parole in 1984, he committed twelve (12) additional robberies in
1985. Since his sentencing to a life
sentence in 1986, he was released again in the 1990s.
All of
these events had taken place while the
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY (2 CNTS)
DISPOSITION: 7-12YR CMTD
STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: KIDNAPPING
DISPOSITION 7-12 YR CMTD
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: 7-12 YR CMTD
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
7-12YR CMTD (3 CNTS) STATUS- CLOSED
Rodwell Trial
November 1981
OFFENSE-.
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
C 6/l/81 NPC
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE: FIREARM VIOLATION – CARRY
DISPOSITION: C 6/l/81 NS STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: KNOWINGLY REC. STOLEN PROPERTY- MV
DISPOSITION C
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: LARCENY OF A MV
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE: THEFT OF A FIREARM
DISPOSITION:
DF
OFFENSE-
FIREARM VIOLATION - CARRY
DISPOSITION: DF
OFFENSE: KNOWINGLY REC. STOLEN PROP
DISPOSITION: Prob
OFFENSE: THEFT OF A FIREARM
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE:
KIDNAPPING
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE: ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON
DISPOSITION:
CMTD SS
OFFENSE:
LARCENY FROM A PERSON
DISPOSITION:
CMTD SS
OFFENSE: LARCENY FROM A PERSON
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: LARCENY
DISPOSITION: C
2YR
CMTD RIR 13 MO CMTD
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE: LARCENY-CURRENCY 403316zz
DISPOSITION: C
APP WD
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: DF WAR STATUS:OPEN
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: DF WAR
STATUS.-OPEN
OFFENSE: LARCENY OF A MV
DISPOSITION: DF 7/13,/76 D/R C
APP WD
R/R 13 MO CMTD STATUS:
CLOSED
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
DF (2 CNTS)
CMTD APP R/R
13MO CMTD STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE: LARCENY FROM A PERSON
DISPOSITION: 2YR CMTD (5 CNTS) STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
LARCENY FROM A PERSON
DISPOSITION: 2YR CMTD, (3 CNTS) STATUS:
CLOSED.
OFFENSE: KNOWINGLY REC STOLEN PROP.
DISPOSITION:
2 YR CMTD, (4 CNTS) STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE: LARCENY OF A MV
DISPOSITION: DF
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY (7 CNTS)
DISPOSITION:
DF
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY (5 CNTS)
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE: LARCENY OF A MV
DISPOSITION: STATUS:
CLOSED
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY (8 CNTS)
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE: KIDNAPPING
DISPOSITION:
NPC DISM STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION:
6YR CMTD
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
UTTERING, (4 CNTS)
DISPOSITION:
CALTD
STATUS: CLOSED
OFFENSE:
LARCENY (2 CNTS)
DISPOSITION:
C
OFFENSE:
ARMED ROBBERY (3 CNTS)
DISPOSITION: DF
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY
DISPOSITION: DISM
STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: LARCENY FROM A PERSON
DISPOSITION: CMTD
STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON
DISPOSITION: CMTD STATUS:CLOSED
.
OFFENSE: ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON
DISPOSITION: CMTD
STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON
DISPOSITION: CMTD SS
OFFENSE: LARCENY FROM A PERSON
DISPOSITION: CMTD SS
OFFENSE: ARMED ROBBERY (2 CNTS)
DISPOSITION: NPC
STATUS:CLOSED
OFFENSE: POSS CLASS D CONT SUB -
MARIJUANA
DISPOSITION: C
06/’02/’71
OFFENSE: POSS CLASS A CONT SLT -
HEROIN
DISPOSITION: C
OFFENSE: POSS HYPODERMIC OR SYRINGE
NEEDLE AND 3
SYR
DISPOSITION: C
Thus, what we see is four (4)
charges of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, twenty
seven (27) charges of armed robbery up to
the time of the defendant’s trial, and twenty-four (24) other assorted
charges. This paints an entirely different picture
of David Nagle. This is not the record of a petty thief. Nagle’s history of violent crime began in
July of 1972, when he was charged with two counts each of larceny from a person and assault with a dangerous
weapon.
The assault charges were dismissed
and Nagle was ordered to serve concurrent five-year sentences after pleading
guilty to the larcenies. In August of
1972, Nagle was charged with one more count each of assault and larceny, as
well as his first recorded armed robbery.
The armed robbery charge was dismissed, and the sentences for the
assault and larceny were ordered to run concurrent with the sentence he was
already serving. In November of 1972,
Nagle was charged with three armed robberies.
These charges were dismissed. A
month later, he was charged with two more armed robberies. These latter charges were reduced to
larcenies from the person upon Nagle’s plea of guilty. The sentences were ordered to again run
concurrently with the sentences he was already serving.
In March of 1973, Nagle was charged
with one armed robbery and four larcenies.
The larcenies, tied in with “uttering” charges, indicating larcenies by
check. After pleading guilty, the
sentences were again ordered to run concurrently with the sentences he was then
serving.
Nagle was paroled from all these
sentences after just six (6) months. In
February of 1974, three months after his parole, Nagle was charged with eight
(8) armed robberies in
Between November of 1975 and
December of 1980, Nagle was charged with several more armed robberies, all of
which were reduced to larcenies upon pleas of guilty. Here, again, he received a total of two (2)
years to be served.
Defense
counsel’s failure to bring Nagle’s
criminal record to the attention of the jury prejudiced the defendant in
two (2) major areas affecting Nagle’s credibility; (1) the sheer weight of
Nagle’s entire criminal record could have dealt a fatal blow, in and of itself,
to Nagle’s credibility, and (2) the fact that just about all of the armed
robberies were reduced to larcenies with minor sentences could have had a
devastating effect on Nagle’s credibility.
We will discuss these points separately.
THE SHEER WEIGHT OF NAGLE’S ENTIRE CRIMINAL RECORD COULD HAVE DEALT A FATAL
BLOW, IN AND OF ITSELF, TO NAGLE’S CREDIBILITY.
Relative to this specific issue, the facts of the
instant case are strikingly similar to those in No. 91-1213, decided on August
6, 1991 the First Circuit, (See Exhibit No.2 attached four (4) prior
convictions of one Dussault jury; seventeen (17) felonies and seven (7)
misdemeanors were not disclosed.
As the Court of Appeals stated:
“The evidence against Ouimette was almost entirely generated
by Dussault. His testimony was
inconsistent at points, even without defense opportunity to impugn his
credibility with full impeachment regarding his deals and prior
convictions. We second the conclusions
of the district court: “I can think of no matter more material than a complete
record of previous convictions of the State’s star witness, Dussault, to be
used for demonstrating the unworthiness of belief of his testimony against
Ouimette. “ Ouimette v. Moran,
No. 88-043 1 H, slip op. at 21 (
As we will see, when
the sole picture of David Nagle is painted, the influence of his entire
criminal record would have been more devastating to his credibility than
Dussault’s in Ouimette.
THE FACT THAT JUST ABOUT ALL OF THE ARMED ROBBERIES WERE REDUCED TO
LARCENIES WITH MINOR SENTENCES COULD HAVE HAD A DEVASTATING
As noted above, almost all of
Nagle’s armed robbery charges were reduced to larcenies with minuscule
sentences. There can be no doubt, as any
police officer or lawyer would testify, that the reduction of all those armed
robberies to larcenies indicates that Nagle made deals (probably several deals)
with police and/or prosecutors to testify against other persons. We don’t, however, have to rely on
supposition; Nagle himself admitted, in an interview with Joseph Bargman of The
Boston Phoenix, that: “It’s an unwritten law. You know you’re not gonna get hurt. You just know.”
The presentation of Nagle’s entire
record, with all those armed robberies being reduced to larcenies and the
attendant small sentences, would have helped to paint the true picture of the
man, -a man who figured he would get a deal beyond the fact that Lt. Spartichino would mention the fact of his
(Nagle’s) cooperation in a pending case.
Both Nagle’s and Spartichino’s
testimony in this regard clearly left the jury with the impression that Nagle
really did not expect much; that he had some hope, but no real expectation of
favorable treatment. That impression
could not have been further from the truth.
‘The real issue here is that everyone, except the jurors, was aware that
Nagle had a long history of making deals - testifying against other people in
order to save himself.
At the close of Nagle’s direct
examination, the jury knew (1) that Nagle had a few prior convictions for
larceny, and (2) that Nagle had received sentences for those crimes, and (3)
that as a result of his cooperation in the instant case, Lt. Spartichino would speak on Nagle’s behalf and
write a letter regarding his pending cases.
What the jury didn’t know was (1) that just about all of the disclosed
convictions were reductions from much more serious charges, (2) that the number
of convictions disclosed was a small percentage of the total, and (3) that
Nagle was a professional informant who knew what his testimony and Lt. Spartichino’s efforts could and would do for
him.
Thus the jury was never made aware
of the fact that Nagle was an “old pro” who knew what it took to make a case
and benefit therefrom. The jury never
was made aware of the fact that, from prior experiences, Nagle knew he would
derive a benefit from making a case against Rodwell. Nagle’s comment to Bargmann “What do you
think I’m stupid? It was like having a get out of jail free card.” The key here
is not whether a deal in fact existed, but what Nagle perceived.
The withholding of the
probation records by the prosecution was first identified by the Boston
Magazine Article entitled “Snitch” in March 1991, almost 10 years after
Rodwell’s conviction. With this
information the judicial system of
Massachusetts has denied motions for a new trial as described in the
Worcester Magazine article entitled “Screwed”.
After exhausting the State remedies, my son’s attorney, Kevin J.
Reddington, applied to the U.S. First District Court for reconsideration of the
original Habeas Corpus decision (1987) for relief based upon FRAUD by the state
prosecutor in the withholding of exculpatory evidence which would have proven
Rodwell’s innocence.[see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)].
The
Argument and Opinion are described and reprinted in the website link www.angelfire.com/pro/rodwell/index.html,
entitled “Justice Denied II”.
In
fact, David Nagle was paroled in 1984 after a recommendation to the
Massachusetts Parole Board by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), for Nagle
having worked for their Agency in New
York City in 1982 and in Massachusetts as an undercover agent while being a
prisoner at the County House of Correction in Greenfield, Massachusetts. All of
these events had taken place while the Massachusetts Supreme Court was ruling
on my son’s direct appeal in 1985. The
allegations of Nagle being a Government
Agent were made during the First Habeas Corpus petition but we had no factual
data (another example of withholding of evidence) and one of the District Court
Judge’s Opinion comment was “Facts are like Flint”. An investigative reporter from CBS News (Mr.
Ty West) gave us the information in January of 1990 that David Nagle was an
undercover informant used by authorities in other cases. This was detailed in a Bail Hearing in 1981
that was not provided as discovery to
the defense although it was asked for as any documents in the prosecutions
possession. Boston Magazine in 1991,an
article entitled “SNITCH”, started the research into Nagle’s past by
After
Nagle’s parole in 1984, he committed twelve additional armed robberies in
1985. Since his sentencing to a life
sentence in 1986, he was back out on the street in the 1990’s. In 1998, he was convicted again for robbery
and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual criminal. He presently is incarcerated at the Souza-Baranowski
Correctional Center Maximum Security Prison in Shirley, MA.,as David P. Nagle
W# 65580. David Nagle also has a terminal illness and is dying and wants to
recant his deal with the government.