Paul Pollard's story changed he admitted to lying to Detective Shuman

Paul Pollard testifies again the next day

Trial transcript

On Friday morning, July 11, Billings reviewed the testimony of several defense witnesses he intended to call to the stand and presented an argument to convince Judge Beaulieu to allow him to show Pollard’s alleged motive for lying on the stand. The evidence would have concentrated on Mike’s murder and Pollard’s presence at the cottage at that time.
      Beaulieu decided to allow only a limited amount of testimony and excluded the questioning of Pollard about whether he was involved in Mike’s murder.
     Shuman again escorted Pollard into the courtroom and walked him to the witness stand.
     I wondered why the detective was being so protective of Pollard; an admitted criminal. Did he fear someone in the courtroom might speak to him?

Billings started his cross-examination by asking Pollard about him telling Shuman in his March 3, 1981 statement at the Penobscot County Jail that Percy Sargent left for Florida in September of 1980 and that he didn’t see him again until January of 1981.
     Pollard admitted that he had lied to MSP Det. Shuman in March of 1981 and said he didn’t have any problem lying to the police at that time.
    “Well, it served your purpose in that February 1985 interview to implicate Richard Sargent in that robbery, did it not?” Billings asked.
     Almy objected to the form of the question but his objection was overruled. Billings asked again.
     “The only purpose it served was to clear my conscience,” Pollard replied.
     Billings told Pollard his purpose was because he thought he was still a suspect in the homicide. When Pollard denied this, Billings said “Even though you’re the last person seen going—” Billings had not yet completed his question when Almy stood up and cut him off with another objection. “He didn’t finish the question,” the judge stated. After a bench conference was held the judge instructed the jury that they were not to make their findings based on a question. “You make your findings on the answers only. Proceed, Mr. Billings.”
     Billings told Pollard that he knew Shuman was interested in information about Richard Sargent when Shuman came to Massachusetts to talk to him because he had newspaper articles that had been sent to you indicating that Richard Sargent had been arrested for that crime.
     Pollard explained that there was a small article that I received from Robert Smith (participant in the second armed robbery with Pollard and Cormier) about the arrest of Richard Sargent, Roger Johnson, and William Meyers for Mike’s murder.
     Billings said, “So you knew he was interested in information about Richard Sargent, isn’t that fair?”
     “Yes.”
     Billings told Pollard that in his March 3, 1981 statement, he said he went to the cottage on February 16th, (one day before Mike's murder) and never mentioned Richard being at the cottage. But in his February 12, 1985 statement, he said he arrived at the cottage a week or so before the fire and that Richard was at the cottage a few times.
     “So your story changed about Richard Sargent and his presence at that camp, didn’t it?” Billings asked.
     “Yes.”
     “So you’re telling us that you were so motivated by your conscience that you just blurted this information out about two armed robberies you’re involved in, with absolutely no protection whatsoever?” Billings said.
     “Yes, that’s right.”
    Billings asked Pollard when he was given full immunity from prosecution on both armed robberies.
     “Sometime after I came forward. I’m not sure exactly when.”
     Billings asked if the State provided him with any monetary assistance.
     “They paid me transportation and lodging.”
     Billings wanted to know if he expected to give any of the money back he had netted from the armed robberies.
     Pollard’s response was, “No.”
    Court ended with Richard Sargent not taking the stand in his own defense.

Summary remarks
In summary remarks, both Almy and Billings agreed that Pollard’s truthfulness was the real issue of the case. DA Almy told the jury that Pollard had not been promised anything when he first spoke with homicide Det. Shuman and that he came forward with the information about the armed robberies to clear his conscience. He said the issue of immunity was not relevant. “Is he telling the truth? That’s what's important.” He also indicated that Pollard’s life was now in jeopardy, saying, “Is he going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life or not? That’s the bottom line.”
     In response, Billings said, “Pollard was not making a choice at this point to put his life on the line—he’s making a choice to save his freedom.” Saying that, “Pollard is still a thief and liar.” He reminded the jury that they did not have to believe the witness, adding, “A leopard doesn’t change his spots. This is a chameleon, an animal who can come in here and change.”
    In rebuttal Almy said, “If Pollard was a liar, then Shuman also would have to be called a liar.” Pointing out that he [Shuman] was a 17-year veteran with the State Police. He said, “There was no reason at all to call Mr. Shuman a liar.”
     I didn’t see how Shuman’s number of years with the Maine State Police made him a truthful officer. A little more than one month later I would hear Richard Sargent and Lionel Cormier’s attorneys’ accuse 17-year veteran, Maine State Police Shuman of committing perjury.
     When the jury returned with a verdict of guilty against Richard Sargent he looked sick. He said he probably should have taken the deal Almy had offered him if he would plead guilty. He had refused the offer. He said he believed they would not be able to find him guilty on the testimony of Paul Pollard—a murderer. Bail was set at $50,000 or two sureties and $7,500 cash.
     Richard now faced a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment. He said he was going to appeal on the grounds that Judge Beaulieu excluded evidence that would have shown Paul Pollard’s motive to lie.
     An article in the BDN that weekend quoted Almy, as saying, “This case was really significant, because of the people we were dealing with ... All the participants, except Paul Pollard were connected with the drug world and have a history of violence.”
     I later uncovered information that shows that Pollard was a criminal who had committed many serious crimes.

Return