• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Boston Criminal Case/ I Seek Justice

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.


Robert Cane

On 7-19-97 I was in Boston MA. and the following incident took place. I alledge that the following of my Constitutional Rights have been violated
and the following facts form the basis of my allegations:
CLAIM 1: The defendants, Officers Stephen Duran and Fransis Griffiths violated the
Plaintiffs Constitutional Right to be secure in his person, protected under the
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
SUPPORTING FACTS : I approached the Officers, who were in an unmarked vehicle, driving
up what I now Know to be Harrison Ave. I asked them directions, at which time they
began to ask me questions,"Why are you going there?", "Who are you going to meet?"
I told them that I did not have to answer any questions, thanked them and began to
walk away. At this point the Officers jumped out of the vehicle and surrounded me.
They asked me for my license, I refused, I told them that I didn't have it. They
ordered me to put my hands behind my back, and stated that I was under arrest for
disorderly conduct, and handcuffed me. They then removed my wallet, money clip,cigar-
ettes and key from my pockets. This took place at at approximately 8pm July 19, 1997.
My companion, a Ms. Lesa Levesque was witness to the entire incident, DOB 2-20-61,
SS# 049. Her home address at the time was , Coventry, CT.
CLAIM 2: The defendants did violate the Fourth Amendment by searching my vehicle
which was locked and parked on private property, fifty feet away, without warrant.
SUPPORTING FACTS: Officers Stephen Duran and Fransis Griffiths siezed property
from my vehicle, I clearly refused them permission to search it. They forcibly took
the key and both did enter and search the truck. I told them that it was illegal
and a violation of my Constitutional Rights, to search it without a warrant, or
cause. Ms. Levesque also witnessed this.
CLAIM 3: My Eighth Amendment Right protecting against cruel and unusual punishment
was violated, while in the custody of the Boston Police.
SUPPORTING FACTS: After booking at the District 4 Police Station, Officer Stephen
Duran began to punch me repeatedly in the face while being choked by an unknown
uniformed Officer. They dragged me into the cell block and an unknown number of
Officers were beating me about the head and body. I was then tossed into a cell,
and while laying on the floor, Officer Stephen Duran kicked me flush in the face,
then the cell door was slammed shut CLAIM 3 cont.:
Some time passed, I'm not sure how long, and an unknown Officer came to my cell.
He pulled his service automatic pistol and stuck it into the slot of my cell. As he began to point it at me, fearing for my life, I jumped against the plexiglass, covering the bars and tried to kick the gun, a Glock automatic from his hand. At that point he removed it and left the area.
The defendants refused to allow me to make a phone call, keeping me incomunicado
for 43 hours. I was deprived of food from my booking until breakfast on 7-21, approx.
33 hours. I was denied medical attention while in Police custody, at the District 4 lock up.
Ms. Levesque was in the Station during the beating, proceeding my booking. She was aware of the inital beating in the booking area. The prisoners already being held in custody witnessed the beating in the cell block area. The prisoner in the adja-
cent cell, saw the unknown Officer stick his gun into my cell. There names should be on record with the Boston Police.

This case is still pending, set for another pre-trial conference on 12-20-2000. I was released on bond in this case on 7-22-97. This incident cause me to loose control of my anger and was arrested in Connecticut and sent to prison for 3 years. The MA. authorities declined to extradite me after sentencing in October of 1998, stating that" due to the nature of the charges they did not wish to extradite." I requested interstate speedy trial forms or simalar forms I would need to file in order to face the outstanding charges, from the CT.custodial officals. They responded stating that,"since MA.did not wish to extradiate therefore you are not entitled to a speedy trial through the IAD. At this point I figure that I have done all I could to obtain a speedy trial and that MA. would dismiss the charges. Well on June 26, 2000, 37 days before my discharge date the CT. authorities present me with papers which they say is a detainer. I researched and filed two motions pertaining to the violations of my rights under the IAD, committed by both the CT. custodial officals along with the MA. officals.Motions....... COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WARRANT NO.9701CROO4275





The defendant, Robert Cane has been in the custody of the State of Connecticut,

Dept. of Corrections, since 8-4-97. He has been available for extradition since

10-2-1998. The proper authorities in your jurisdiction were contacted by the Connecticut

Dept. of Corrections, at Mr. Canes request. On 11-12-1998 a teletyp6 was recieved by

a Mr. John CreanzA confirming previous tele comunications with a Mr.Block on 10-6-1998

and a Detective Brown of the Boston Police Fugitive Unit that the authority having juris-

diction would not extradite. This teletype came from a Det. Gows of the Boston Police

fugitive unit, after the case was reviewed by the Commander of the unit, Capt. David

I. Walsh.(see attached teletype)

Since this contact was initiated by the Defendant, his right to a speedy trial was

put into effect. Since the jurisdiction having authority did not file an offical detainer

within 180 days all charges should have no further force or effect, and said court should

enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.


Robert A. Cane, Pro-se
CCI #103614
900 Highland Ave. Cheshire, CT 06410 To The Court:

Article I of the interstate agreement on detainees clearly shows that the prisoner is
afforded some rights. It states,"difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already
incarcerated in other jurisdiction, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of
prisoner treatment and rehabilitation."
The prisoner is entitled to peace of mind while preparing for release, without another
jurisdiction holding charges over his head indefinately, then acting at the last
possible moment to secure extradition.
Once a party state is made aware of the prisoners status it cannot respond at that time
and than reverse itself at the end of said prisoners term, and request extradition.
This is clearly not in the spirit of the agreement. Once written confirmation is recieved
by the sending state, declining to extradiate said prisoner the recieving state has no
recourse but to dismiss said order with prejudice.
All party states are bound by the agreement to act in good faith.
In this case the Massachuetts authorities clearly decline to extradite Mr. Cane in
November of 1998. The teletype confirming this is in his DOC central file and is
attached here. By requesting extradition on 5-26-2000, clearly they have no right
to do this, in violation of the interstate agreement to which they are a party.
Their warrant has

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential