Dana Gallop v. State of Rhode Island

Syllabus

The petitioner, Dana Gallop (petitioner or Gallop), sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his application for postconviction relief. On certiorari, Gallop challenged what he characterized as the trial justice's decision to deny his motion for summary disposition, as well as the state's purported failure to disclose alleged inducements given to two eyewitnesses in exchange for their testimony. The Supreme Court rejected these claims and concluded that Gallop never objected to the cancellation of the hearing on the motion for summary disposition. Accordingly, that issue was waived. The Supreme Court also determined that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive any material evidence when he determined that the state disclosed that the two eyewitnesses were in the witness protection program (WPP). Having determined that the trial justice's finding was supportable, the Supreme Court further concluded that Gallop knew—or should have known—that both eyewitnesses could have incurred WPP expenses. Finally, the state's nondisclosure of a $2,500 WPP expenditure (and the nearly $18,000 that had been approved for WPP expenditures) did not represent a deliberate nondisclosure and did not prejudice petitioner in light of the state's overwhelming evidence of guilt and trial counsel's extensive impeachment efforts. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment dismissing the application for postconviction relief.