Closing Arguments Heard in Dan Doyle Embezzlement Trial

GoLocal News Editor Kate Nagle

Closing Arguments Heard in Dan Doyle Embezzlement Trial

Doyle, seated with his lawyer, listens to Assistant Attorney General Youngs address the jury on Monday.
Closing arguments were heard on Monday at Washington County Superior Court in the State of Rhode Island’s case against Dan Doyle, the former Executive Director for the Institute for International Sport who was indicted in 2013 on 18 counts of embezzlement and fraud. 

Associate Justice Melanie Thunberg presided, urging jurors that the closing arguments did not constitute evidence in the trial, which began back in September with the selection of the jury, and saw 53 witnesses brought forth by the state and 12 by the defense.

“You promised you’d hold the state to burden of proof — as to each and every element of the crimes charged,” said Doyle’s attorney Michael Blanchard to the jury.  “Trials are about fact and law. You have to put personal feelings aside and decide case solely on the facts.”

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Blanchard, in addressing they jury, took issue with a number of the state’s claims, including that the lack of meeting minutes in a number of instances constituted criminality.

“The state’s basic claim that because there are not minutes that [show the budget existed] that Mr. Doyle committed a crime,” said Blanchard.  “To follow that to its illogical conclusion is that every act of the Institute was illegal - because there was not one minute approving every activity,” said Blanchard. “Yet board members attended games. Under the state’s argument, every employee committed a crime because there are no minutes approving the budget.”

Another of the defense’s claim was that any issues related to the Institute’s by-laws would be civil — and not criminal — in nature. 

“At the beginning of the trial, we talked about burden of proof in civil versus criminal matters,” said Blanchard. “We contend they are civil.  There’s nothing in the [Institute’s] bylaws that say violation of the bylaws are criminal.”

“The state is asking you to set precedent by trying civil matters as criminal prosecution,” said Blanchard. “And that’s a dangerous precedent to set.”

Prosecution on Offense

Dan Doyle
Assistant Attorney General J. Patrick Youngs used his closing arguments to paint a picture of a defendant who knowingly covered-up what he had one, included forging emails and signatures.

In 2012, a state Auditor General’s report showed that the Institute could only account for $163,400 of a 2007 state grant for $575,000, which led to a subsequent state police investigation that resulted in the 18-count indictment in 2013.

“We told you each of those witnesses was a piece of the puzzle as to what happened at the Institute,” said Young. “I took notice of what Mr. Blanchard said — Dan Doyle was the Institute. This case is not an indictment of the game, that without doubt had a positive impact on many young people. They were a good thing.

“He’s charged with embezzling from a good thing - the fact that he had that vision does not absolve  him of the crimes he committed,” said Young.” It’s a shame those games don’t exist.”

“The State of Rhode Island’s audit — do you think [Doyle’ might mention that to board? Convene a board meeting? [One board member] read it in the paper,” said Young. “If Doyle convened board, they would start asking questions, and the truth would come out and that would be inconvenient for Mr. Doyle, who had been pillaging Institute for years.”

The prosecution said that in total, Doyle took over $1 million from Institute funds for his own personal use, including “cosmetic eye surgery” at Duke Medical Center in North Carolina.

“By the time Dan Doyle was done, the Institute was funding his whole life,” said Young. “Meanwhile, it was awash in debt.”

SLIDES: RI's Wealthiest and Most Influential 2015


Rhode Island’s 50 Wealthiest and Most Influential - 2015 Edition

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.