Petitioner Vincent M. Marino requests a “evidentiary hearing” concerning the Due Process Violations, Egregious historic and current governmental misconduct and on going governmental cover-ups:
The baseline rule is that a criminal defendant has no absolute or presumptive right to insist that a federal district court take testimony on every motion. Accordingly, when considering the question of whether an evidentiary hearing should be granted in connection with a Due Process violations and historic and current egregious governmental misconduct, a district court should facilitate a “an evidentiary hearing” to determine whether the defendant Marino has made a threshold showing sufficient to warrant such a hearing. In pursuing this inquiry, the court must make a practical, commonsense evaluation.
When, for example as in Marino his motion is conclusively supported by the files and records depicted in United States v. Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d 141, 262-269, 311 (D.Mass.1999), an evidentiary hearing would be required to further the PUBLIC RECORD.Although the records independently corroborates the concealed and under sealed documents supports Marino’s claims supra, the granting of an evidentiary hearing lies within the district court’s sound discretion. As the district court possesses a more finely hones sense of the situation and a superior feel for the facts which were concealed by the government from the 1997 Federal Grand Jury, (1998) First Trial Jurors, (1999) Second Trial Jurors and from the district court and FROM DEFENDANT Marino , the concealed discovery since 1989 well over 23 years ago supports Marino’s actual, factual and legal innocence of the June 16th, 1989 Salemme attempted murder which Marino was found NOT PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of predicate Racketeering Act A-2 Salemme Attempted Murder in both Counts One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy on December 22, 1999 by a 12 man and woman jury via: U.S. v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts/Worcester)However the Court with the urging of the government enhanced Marino’s sentence an extra 25 years by the preponderance of the evidence for the Salemme attempted murder, without receiving the above under sealed discovery described in Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d pages 267-269, 311 Exhibits 188-247 (D.mass.1999) UNDER SEAL.
- See United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.2000);
- United States v. Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d 141 (D.Mass.1999);
- United States v. Salemme, 978 F.Supp. 343 (D.Mass.1997);
FBI agent Connolly has been prominently featured in several such opinions. See, e.g., McIntyre v. United States, 367 F.3d 38 (1st Cir.2004) (addressing civil suit by putative victims’ heirs against the FBI and FBI agents Connolly and Buckley and its prized informants Flemmi, Bulger, Mercurio and others, as the First Circuit upheld agent Connolly’s conviction and sentence on direct review. See United States v. Connolly, 341 F.3d 16-29 (1st Cir.2003); United States v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 210.
Beginning in the early 1970s, FBI agent Connolly was an FBI agent in the Boston Office, during his tenure, he soard as the “handler” of two “TOP ECHELON” informants James “Whitey” Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi. Although nominally part of the Winter Hill Gang, Bulger and Flemmi frequently consorted with the Boston branch of the LCN and purported to transmit inside information to the FBI concerning organized crime activities in New England.Marino’s Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests #11-2085, 11-2968, 11-2969, 11-3089 to the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys Department of Justice.