Five civil liberties and open government groups called Tuesday for the public release of the material from the 38 Studios investigation.
“[T]he disaster known as 38 Studios happened because of a deeply ingrained culture of secrecy in this state,” the groups said in a letter to Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and Col. Steven O’Donnell, superintendent of the State Police. “The official state investigation into that disaster should not perpetuate that culture.”
The request was made by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union; Common Cause of Rhode Island; Access/RI; the state chapter of the League of Women Voters; and the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Last Friday, Kilmartin and O’Donnell announced that there would be no criminal charges after a four-year investigation of 38 Studios, the failed video game company that had been lured to Rhode Island with a $75 million loan guarantee. Kilmartin said that although the case is now inactive, it remains open, and release grand jury material would violate court rules since the surfacing of new information could reactive the probe. on Tuesday, he said there is sound justification for keeping the materials from the investigation confidential.
“At least two pieces of civil litigation directly related to the same subject are awaiting trial,” Kilmartin said in a statement. “Although I do not expect this litigation to disclose new information that may prompt us to reexamine our conclusions in the criminal investigation, it would be irresponsible for me to release this information prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.”
But the five groups said in their letter that the information being withheld “included both those considered by the grand jury and the numerous other records generated by the investigation that were not presented to the grand jury. Regarding the grand jury records, the letter pointed to two other newsworthy incidents — the Station Fire tragedy and, in 2000, the shooting of off-duty police officer Cornel Young Jr. — where grand jury records were released. The groups rejected as unpersuasive the arguments that the two law enforcement agencies have given for not following the path taken in the Station Fire investigation in having the records opened.”
Kilmartin responded by saying rules concerning grand jury secrecy are strict: “These rules are made even more strict when a grand jury hears information, but does not return an indictment. It’s a red herring for the ACLU and others to compare this situation to that of previous examples when grand jury proceedings were released. The fact that an indictment was returned in the Station Nightclub case makes that case fundamentally different than the 38 Studios case. And in the case of the grand jury that reviewed the tragic death of Sergeant Cornel Young, Jr., the targets of that grand jury specifically waived their rights to privacy, and the court found a particularized need for the release of the information. In both those instances, the criminal investigations considered by the grand juries were closed prior to the release of the grand jury transcripts.”
Some politicians from both sides of the aisle, including House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello and one of his Republican opponents, Steven Frias, have called for the public release of the material from the 38 Studios investigation. Members of the House GOP caucus tweeted footage from a recent GOP effort to launch an outside probe.
State Democratic Chairman Joseph McNamara, a state rep from Warwick, joined the call, saying that releasing the material would help “clear the air and dispel the continued distrust in our government processes.”
“This has been a long and difficult period for Rhode Island, our government and the people of our state,” McNamara said in a statement. “Now that the investigation has concluded, it is time to move on — but not without first fully disclosing the information within those records that were withheld and presented in that investigation. By not doing so, we only continue to allow a cloud of suspicion to remain over our state, to the detriment of all.”
On Friday, Kilmartin said the distinction on why grand jury information was released in the Station case is that it produced charges.
The five groups cited what they call compelling reasons in pushing for the material gathered outside of the grand jury process.
“Of the 146 witnesses your agencies interviewed, only 11 were called before the grand jury,” the groups said. “Thus a wide range of independent information gathered by your agencies that would shed light on this incredibly important incident in Rhode Island history if you publicly released the information — which, under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), you have the clear right to do.”
The civil liberties and good government groups said State Police opted to release information “following two highly publicized incidents — the Cranston parking ticket scandal and the controversial school resource officer ‘body slam’ incident at Tolman High School in Pawtucket. “Surely the public deserves similar access to information about an investigation involving millions of taxpayer dollars,” they said.
Ahead of reading the letter from the five groups, Colonel O’Donnell told RIPR, “As stated earlier, our investigation is still open and we are awaiting the closure of the civil part of 38 Studios to come to a finality. The laws governing access to public records and the grand jury process are clear in what can and can’t be done with records. I certainly understand the public’s right to know and share the same concern as a citizen. Once the civil case is closed, we will [assess] what needs to be done with documents pertaining to the 38 Studios investigation. From the onset of the Cranston Police assessment I was clear that it would be released when completed. Regarding the Tolman high school investigation, once it was closed, we redacted the reports per state law and released them.”
In his statement, Kilmartin responded by saying, “Politics should have no role in judicial proceedings, and to change course at the request of outside politically-motivated groups would be a betrayal of the judicial process. Since this group chose to take their so-called unbiased request to the media before giving the Office the courtesy to respond, they may consider this a formal response to their letter.”
This post has been updated.