| Paul Pollard testifies |
|
Court transcripts Paul Pollard was called to the stand as the third witness for the state and Shuman guarded him as he walked him to the witness stand, just as he had in July. DA Almy began by asking him if he would give his name, address, and place of employment. He said his name was Paul Pollard and he lived in Readfield, Maine. He said he worked in an attorneys’ firm by the name of Duncan and Associates in Washington, D.C. (Long commute from Readfield, Maine—according to MapQuest it takes 11 hours and 3 minutes to drive the 605.5 miles to Washington, D.C. from Readfield, ME.) He said during the fall of 1980 and early spring of 1981, he lived in East Corinth with his half-brother, Lionel Cormier, and his girlfriend, Carla Phair and prior to that he had been living in Readfield, Maine, and before that in Alaska with his mother. He said he started Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1982. He testified that Shuman came to see him at the college in 1985. He also doesn’t mention that his interview in 1985 with Shuman in Massachusetts was done at the Worcester, Mass. PD. [Shuman’s kid was now twenty-six years old.] Almy asked Pollard to tell the jury how the robberies occurred. Pollard said for the first robbery the plan was that two people would go into the house and two would stay outside—and that Lionel had a 7mm rifle and ski masks. Pollard didn’t say which Sargent went inside the house with Cormier or which one stayed outside. He said they came back with a couple of sacks containing $20,000 and a small amount of drugs. They drove back to Cormier’s and went into the shed and divided the money. He got $3,000 for driving the get-away car. He said when he and Cormier planned the second armed robbery on Mr. Dolan in March of 1981, he talked Bob Smith, his friend, in to helping them. “When Bob seemed to hesitate on it, I told him that it would be easy, like the first one—that he wouldn’t have to do very much.” Pollard didn't mention at that time that he was armed with a .357 magnum pistol during the robbery of Dolan or that it was the same gun that he had on him when he, Cormier and Percy Sargent murdered Mike a month previous. During DA Almy and MSP Det. Shuman’s interview with Robert Smith on December 30, 1985, Smith told the two law officials, “Paul had a gun, ’cause they both had hand guns and they brought their hunting rifle along because they said that I needed something.” He said after the robbery they went to a motel room to divide the $31,000. At the motel room he noticed that Cormier had, “some blood on his shoes.” They divided the money three ways and Pollard got $10,000 for driving the get-away car that time. Attorney Martha Harris began her cross-examination of Pollard by asking him about his relationship to Cormier. He said Cormier was his half-brother who was adopted by his father, Edmond Cormier. And that Ellen McCarman (phonetically spelled) was his and Cormier’s mother. He lived in the same home with Lionel until he was about eight or ten years old. At that age, he went to reside with a man by the name of Owen Pollard [Owen Pollard never married but he took in young boys. They took his last name, but not legally]. He took the name Pollard, but was never adopted by Mr. Pollard; his legal name is Cormier. He wasn’t asked and didn’t say what Lionel’s surname was before he was adopted by Edmond Cormier. “Mr. Pollard, I understand that you’re telling the jury now and telling us that you told Officer Shuman about these robberies because you had to come clean. Is that correct?” “Yes.” “These were bothering you, and you had to tell—bare your soul, I think you said. Is that correct?” “Something like that, yes.” “You didn’t tell about Mary Roberts’ home in June of 1981, did you?” “I don’t know who Mary Roberts is.” [Ms. Harris mistakenly named the person as Mary Roberts—Mary’s last name was Thompson.] “You didn’t tell him about Greene, Maine, did you?” Almy objects to questioning Pollard about his crimes and says, “Your Honor, could we go to sidebar.” Almy told the Judge, “I expect that this is impeachment cross-examination and I didn’t think its proper impeachment.” Harris said, “What I’m seeking to introduce this evidence for is to disabuse the jury of his statement that he was just coming forward with these to clear his conscience. The Judge said, “Then that’s to credibility and his understanding was that the only time you could produce prior crimes as to credibility is if there’s a conviction.” The Judge sustained the objection. Ms. Harris then said, “Mr. Pollard, you spoke with Sergeant Shuman of the Maine State Police in early March of 1981, did you not?” “Yes, I did.” “And you spoke with him at that time relating to the fire and the murder of Micheal Cochran. Is that correct?” “Yes.” “And at that time [March 3, 1981] you told him that you hadn’t seen Percy Sargent since September of 1980 until January of 1981. Isn’t that correct?” “It’s true that I said that.” “That was a lie, wasn’t it?” “Yes.” “In fact, in that conversation that you had with Sergeant Shuman there were a lot of lies, weren’t there?” “At that time in my life, yes.” “And he specifically came to talk to you because you were a person who had been seen running from the fire where Mr. Cochran’s body was found. Isn’t that correct?” “I escaped from the fire, yes.” “You were a suspect for that crime, weren’t you?” “At that time, I believe I was.” “When you saw [Shuman] in 1985, you were aware that certain people had been arrested for the murder, were you not?” Pollard said he had become aware when his good friend Bob Smith sent him a couple of articles in the mail. “And ... according to your testimony here, you were conspiring with certain people—Bob Smith one of your close friends, and according to your testimony, Lionel Cormier—to commit a very serious robbery. Isn’t that correct?” “Yes.” “And, in fact, you were conspiring and you knew at that time that you were going to use firearms in this very serious robbery, didn't you?” “Yes.” “In addition, Mr. Pollard, you were also in trouble relating to another firearm charge, weren’t you?” “Yes.” “You were indicted for reckless conduct with a firearm, shooting into somebody’s house. Isn’t that correct?” “Yes.” “How long did he ask you questions about the fire until you got this sudden urge to tell him about these robberies?” “Probably about an hour.” "Do you recall exactly what Shuman was asking you at the time you decided you wanted to bring up these robberies?” “He was asking about the fire.” “Was he asking about where you went after the fire?” “I don’t remember.” “Was he asking you whether you had set the fire?” “I don’t think he asked that, no.” “Was he asking whether you had killed Micheal Cochran?” “No, I don't believe so.” “After the first hour, you don’t remember what was being discussed exactly, but all of a sudden you started talking instead of about Micheal Cochran and the murder, you started talking about Charles Dolan and these robberies. Is that correct?” “Yes, that’s right.” “Mr. Pollard, you were making sure that the police weren’t going to look at you about this murder anymore because you were going to tell them something about Lionel Cormier and get out of it, weren’t you?” “No, that wasn’t my idea.” “He [Shuman] didn’t say anything about, ‘Well, if you tell me about these things and we can get somebody on them, we’ll give you immunity.’ He didn’t say anything to you about, ‘Jeez, we’d like some information about Richard Sargent or Percy Sargent?’ He didn’t say anything about ‘Jeez, we’d like as much information as we can about your brother Lionel Cormier?’... You just decided to tell these stories because you had to come clean?” “I had to clear my conscience.” “And did this clear your conscience, sir?” “Yes.” “Nothing else you want to tell the police about?” “No.” “No other little ventures with Bob Smith that you’d like to tell us about?” “No.” “Did you have a gun?” “At the time of the second robbery, I had a handgun.” “What kind of gun was that?” “Smith and Wesson .357.” “That’s the same gun you had the night of Michael Cochran’s murder too, wasn't it?” “I had it at the camp, yes.” “You had it at the camp?” “Yes.” Almy appeared nervous with Harris’ line of questioning and asked to see the Court at sidebar. He told the judge that he thought that Harris had had pretty large leeway in the situation, and he thought at this point the prejudicial effect or the confusion of the issues and the waste of time that’s going to be generated by further questions in this area is going to outweigh its probative value. Judge Beaulieu said, “Well, the question was—was [it] used in these two crimes and whether he had it on his person and et cetera, and I’ll allow it. All right.” Harris asked, “Could the court reporter please repeat the question?” “You had it at the camp?” was as read by the reporter. Harris said, “Is that correct?” “Yes.” “Didn’t you have it stashed out in the woods?” “I had it inside.” “Did you take it with you when you left the camp?” “Yes.” “Did you tell Sergeant Shuman in February of 1985 that you had a gun with you and you took it with you when you left the camp?” “No.” “So you lied to him even as late as February of ’85, didn’t you?” DA Almy objects said, “I’m going to object to the form of that question, Your Honor. There’s no evidence here—” The judge said, “Objection—just a moment. Just a moment, Counsel. Objection to the form of the question is sustained. Whether or not that is an untruth, is for the jury to decide in this area. Restate your question.” But Almy continued, “Your Honor, I would like to state my objection. The reason for my objection is, there’s no evidence at all—” The judge cut him off again and said, “Mr. Almy, if you’re going to argue, I will see you at sidebar.” “I have no argument, your Honor.” Ms. Harris said, “Mr. Pollard, when was the fire?” “February 18th [1981].” “And did you leave the state after the fire?” “Yes.” “How soon after the fire?” “Within a couple of days.” “How long did you stay?” “Two or three days.” “Did you take your gun with you?” “No, I don’t think so.” “Do you have any idea where you left it?” “No, I don't remember.” ”But you’re sure that you had it about a month later when you went over to Mr. Dolan’s house?” “Yes, I did have it then.” “Mr. Pollard, you’ve now told us that you conspired and committed a very serious armed robbery. Is that correct?” “Two of them, in fact.” “And nothing’s going to happen to you ... You’re going to be able to go free, live in Washington, D.C., and work. Isn’t that correct?” “I will not be prosecuted.” DA Almy: “And with respect to this .357 weapon that you had in your possession at the time of the second robbery [and at the time of Mike’s murder], were you asked specifically by Mr. Shuman anything about that .357 at any time?" “No.” Harris said “Mr. Pollard, let me understand. You mean you were never asked by Mr. Shuman what you took out of the fire when you raced away from it.” “I don’t think so.” “Well, Mr. Pollard, didn’t you tell him that you didn’t have your clothes at first and you had to go back in, and then you had to get your shoes and you lost one of your shoes?” Almy said, “I’m going to object, your Honor. I think this goes beyond the scope of redirect.” Judge Beaulieu said, “Objection overruled. He may answer.” “I went back into the house to try find my clothes. I could only feel around for a couple of things, and I grabbed them and left.” |
| Robert Smith testifies |
| Return |