| | Advanced Search


Side of the Rhode: Who’s Hot and Who’s Not in RI Politics?—Side of the Rhode: Who’s Hot and Who’s…

NEW: RI Medicare Non-Profit Receives $53.4 Million Federal Contract—NEW: RI Medicare Non-Profit Receives $53.4 Million Federal…

Finneran: The Rockets’ Red Glare—Finneran: The Rockets' Red Glare

5 Live Music Musts - July 25, 2014—The Newport Folk Festival is the hottest ticket…

From RI to Worcester to Lithuania, Baron Faces Uphill Battle to NBA Dream—From RI to Worcester to Lithuania, Baron Faces…

The Cellar: For the Love of Cabernet (Franc)—One of my favorite grape varietals is Cabernet…

Why URI Providence?—The University of Rhode Island Feinstein Providence Campus…

Gracie’s Executive Chef Matthew Varga Featured in Art Culinaire—Executive Chef Matthew Varga of Gracie’s was featured…

Providence College Ranked RI’s Biggest Party School—NEW: Providence College Ranked RI's Biggest Party School

See Rhode Island in “50 States of Legos”—NEW: See Rhode Island in "50 States of…


NEW: Chafee Disappointed with Supreme Court Ruling

Monday, January 14, 2013


Governor Lincoln Chafee has responded to the Supreme Court’s decision today to decline a petition for writs of certiorari filed by Chafee and defendant Jason Wayne Pleau that would have given Rhode Island another chance to appeal a decision made last year by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the case against Pleau.

The Supreme Court decision means that Pleau will be tried at the federal level, where prosecutors will seek the death penalty for a 2010 crime in which he is accused of murdering a Lincoln man outside of a Woonsocket bank.
Pleau had already agreed to serve a life sentence without parole under state law and Chafee, an opponent of the death penalty, sought to keep him in state custody but lost in a key decision back in May when the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided, 3-2, to reject his argument that, under a federal law known as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), he had the legal right to refuse to turn over Pleau.

“I am disappointed that the United States Supreme Court has decided not to review this important case,” Chafee said in a statement. “Rhode Island and 47 other states entered into the Interstate Agreement on Detainers in good faith. That Agreement authorizes Governors to refuse a prisoner transfer request when it would violate the custodial state’s public policy. I invoked the Agreement to block the transfer of Mr. Pleau to federal custody because it appeared that the sole purpose of that transfer was to subject Mr. Pleau to the death penalty – a penalty that Rhode Island has long rejected.”

Chafee said that he believes that, under the agreement, the federal government was “obligated to respect Rhode Island’s right … to refuse to transfer the prisoner.”

“That it did not and that the federal courts did not enforce the express terms of the Agreement is cause for concern both for the future of the Agreement and for our federalism,” Chafee said. ”As I have repeatedly said, my involvement in this case was not about Mr. Pleau personally, but rather about critical states’ rights issues.”


Related Articles


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


on to the next cause celebre!!!

Comment #1 by jon paycheck on 2013 01 14

Now stop wasting our money on this matter. It is, as liberals like to say "settled law." The comment about states' rights was a funny touch, however. Liberals like the Governot only call for states's rights when it serves the Prog agenda. They will gladly let Obama violate any amendment of the constitution without a fuss, as long as it restricts the rights of people who believe in traditional values.

Comment #2 by Michael Trenn on 2013 01 14

@Michael-you sure have gotten to the heart of the matter-sob sister Chafee only cares about states' rights when it suits his degenerate agenda.His position as a cheerleader for a man accused of cold blooded murder of an innocent victim gives a view into Chafee's perverted soul.

Comment #3 by Joseph Bernstein on 2013 01 15

You're an embarrassment to this state. Just shut up and go away.

What about the social drinking law? why isn't this guy being charged for hosting an underaged drinking party?

Isn't there ANYBODY who wants to work in this F&&&&ing; state?!?!?!

Comment #4 by pearl fanch on 2013 01 16

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.