Cormier's defense attorney's motion

Court transcript 1. Question Pollard about his crimes “Your Honor, so that the record is clear, I would indicate to the Court that, if I had not been foreclosed by the Court and the Court’s rulings, I would have introduced the following information. If allowed to have Mr. Pollard yesterday answer ... he would have said that he had been convicted of Forgery in 1979 in Waterville and operating under the influence in New York State in 1985.      “If allowed to inquire further into Mr. Pollard’s plans, conspiracies to commit other crimes, and other crimes which he committed but has not been tried or convicted for, I would have inquired into the burglary in Manchester, Maine and Kenney Kane’s home, which was an act that was done with Bob Smith. ...      “In addition, I would have inquired of Mr. Pollard and would inquire of Mr. Smith if allowed that Mr. Smith and Mr. Pollard did both conspire and perform the following robberies, while armed; and, that would be on Dave Dupray in Bangor in June of 1981, on Ron Jellison in Bangor in July of 1981, on Bob Gahan in Dedham in Bangor in July of 1981, on George Vietter in Orrington in November of 1981, on Mark Ashe in Dedham in August of 1981.      “I would further, your Honor, have inquired about a burglary in Greene, Maine, in June of 1981, again, of both of these gentlemen.      “I would also have inquired further about a burglary which occurred in the Mary Roberts [the name was Mary Thompson] home in Brewer in June of 1981. I would have inquired further about that with Mr. Pollard, and I would have also inquired of Bob Smith and in particular would have inquired of Mr. Smith about a certain gun that he received from that burglary which was a .30 caliber rifle. 2. Question Marvin Glazier, Pollard's attorney, about Pollard's crime “I would further have inquired of Marvin Glazier, [Pollard’s attorney] who is on the witness list, and would have received information that Mr. Pollard had turned in guns, certain guns, to him in 1982 and those guns came from the Mary Roberts [Thompson] home which had been burglarized in June of 1981.      In addition, your Honor, I would have inquired of Mr. Pollard particularly that he, in later 1981 and early 1982, did go to Key West, Florida, with Larry Smith, and bought great quantities of cocaine and brought that back to the State of Maine to distribute in the State of Maine.  I would also have established through Mr. Pollard that he had participated in the stealing of dynamite in the summer of 1978.      “Your Honor, all of these matters would have been presented and I would seek to present them not for the purposes of showing that he has committed other crimes and therefore is less trustworthy, but rather for the information relating to bias and prejudice and also to impeach his testimony wherein he told the jury that the only reason he came forward in February of 1985 and told Mr. Shuman about these robberies and implicated Mr. Cormier in them was because they were bothering him and these were the only things that he had ever done wrong in his life, and therefore he had to come clean.      “Clearly, if allowed to introduce this evidence, it would show that that was not his motivation and would assist us in showing what his real motivation was and that is to cast the finger at other people so that he would no longer be the primary focus for the Cochran murder.”      Judge Beaulieu said, “Why don't you let me respond on the record for that? Once again, the Court is satisfied that, if you meet the requirements of Rule 609 or you represent to the Court that you are ready to meet the requirements of 609, the Court will allow you to introduce any evidence of prior convictions of either Mr. Pollard or Mr. Smith.     ... It is my understanding through your offer of proof, I conclude that there are no convictions, there are no indictments.      “These crimes although reported—if they have been reported—have not resulted in the conviction of any of these persons who are involved. You want to inquire concerning their activity that you believe that they’re involved in. And I am excluding those.      “Now, Mr. Almy, before we move on to the so-called second part of Miss Harris’s offer of proof, do you want to make a comment for the record?”      The only comment was, “I think Mr. Pollard would deny what Mrs. Harris has to offer, and at this point you’re left with the decision of wasting the Court’s time. ...”           “All right. Let us get into the other part, Miss Harris. I understood you to say there is two sections here.” 3. Question Pollard about Mike's murder “Yes, Your Honor. The other issue would be the relationship of Mr. Pollard to the Micheal Cochran murder and the fire which occurred on February 18th, I believe, 1981. This is a matter that I think we have previously discussed on the record, although not in any great detail. The Court is aware that the information that is being sought is similar to the information that was being sought to be introduced by Mr. Billings in the companion case of State versus Richard Sargent.       I will try not to go into too much detail, but I do want to make it clear on the record in this case as to what information would have been offered were the Court to allow it. I have already previously been aware that the Court would not allow it. And I would have inquired further into the murder and the factual occurrences that Mr. Pollard revealed to Mr. Shuman in his statements to him on March 3rd, 1981; March 5th, 1981; and again on February 12th, 1985.      “In those statements among other things, I would have introduced his statement relating to the fact that he was asleep and had woken up in the camp when it was on fire, that he had left the premises and did not have his clothing and went back in to get his shoes and socks. And, when he went back out, he lost one of the shoes and was running from the premises with only one shoe on. 4. Question Fire Chief Norman Herrin “I would have presented evidence from Norman Herrin who was the first officer at the scene of the fire, the Fire Chief in Dedham—Lucerne, who indicated that he did observe someone running from the scene and also observed the tracks of that individual and that it was clear to him that that person was wearing two shoes and did not have his foot bound in the manner in which Mr. Pollard indicated to Mr. Shuman that he had done. 5. Question Mark Ashe about Pollard coming to his home “In addition, I would have introduced again the statement from Mr. Pollard to Mr. Shuman, that he had first gone to Mark Ashe’s home and that no one was home; and, I would then introduce Mr. Ashe’s testimony that he was home that morning and no one came including Mr. Pollard. 6. Question Blanche Clarke about Pollard coming to her home “I would further introduce the statement from Mr. Pollard to Mr. Shuman that he then went—and this was very early in the morning—over to make a phone call at a home across from Mr. Ashe’s and that was very early in the morning. I would then introduce the testimony of Blanche Clarke who would say that she does remember a person coming to use the telephone that day, but it was a much later time than Mr. Pollard is claiming. She would also further testify that there was no strangeness about this individual’s shoe wear and that there was no odor of fire or soot on Mr. Pollard. 7. Question Det. Barry Shuman “In addition, your Honor, I would seek to inquire into Sgt. Shuman in more detail the nature of the Cochran case, the situation of what questions he had inquired of Mr. Pollard, what information he had received relating to inconsistencies, and perhaps lies in Mr. Pollard’s test [and] statements to [Shuman] both in 1981 and then in 1985. And the purpose of inquiring into Mr. Shuman in that regard would be to again show that Mr. Pollard was, in fact, still under suspicion for that situation in 1985.      “I would further inquire of Mr. Shuman if allowed to, as to whether he had information or anyone had new information relating to the Dolan robberies from either Federal authorities or any other State Police authorities prior to him going to Massachusetts to speak with Mr. Pollard in February of 1985.”      “Your Honor, again, these matters are not sought to be introduced to prove that Mr. Pollard committed the murder or the arson or anything else. It is really to delve into and allow the jury to assess Mr. Pollard’s credibility and statements about him feeling that he was not a suspect in 1985 and also Mr. Shuman’s statement that he was not a suspect in 1985, and in addition to be able to assess Mr. Pollard’s statements relating to the fact that the only reason that he was, again, bringing up the robberies was because he wanted to bare his soul for all the wrongdoing he’d ever done. Thank you.” “All right. Court is satisfied once more, so that the record is clear, I have allowed and will allow Miss Harris to inquire concerning the fact that Mr. Pollard was a suspect in the so-called Cochran case. I’m sure the record will indicate at this point in time in reference to the Cochran case allegations have been made that Mr. Cochran died as a result of homicide activities. There has never been any convictions in reference to the Cochran case; there have been no indictments in reference to the Cochran case.      “That’s not before the court, and the Court is satisfied that any relevancy as to the credibility of Mr. Pollard because of his activities, some of which have been testified to, i.e., the manner in which he left the building where the fire took place and Mr. Cochran died, the testimony of these people as to Mr. Cochran or any parts of that activity are outweighed as to any possible relevancy they would have by the confusion that it would cause to the Jury and by misleading the Jury and that for that reason the Court is excluding them.      “The Court is satisfied that there had been no convictions ... So there’s no misunderstanding, Miss Harris, I have allowed and will continue to allow you to inquire concerning the issue of whether or not he was a suspect, but I will not allow any testimony concerning what actually happened in that particular incident to which would cause the Jury to conclude whether or not he actually committed those crimes, and I think that's not the real reason, one of the more basic reasons that I’m excluding it. I feel it would be misleading to the Jury, and I’m excluding it. All right.”      Harris asked, “Do I understand that I could inquire into, from Mr. Shuman, about specific instances and inconsistencies and so on relating to Mr. Pollard’s activity as being a suspect?”      “You can inquire from Mr. Shuman as to statements made by Mr. Pollard to him that are related to this matter. I’m not going to go through the Cochran investigation. That’s basically what I’m saying. All right.”

Robert Smith testifies

Return