Det. Shuman commits perjury
 
Trial transcripts

Shuman swore again to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
     “Mr. Shuman, I’m going to take you now to your involvement with Paul Pollard. When did you first interview Mr. Pollard?"
     “My first interview with Mr. Pollard would have been sometime either late February or early March of 1981.” 
     “And what was the purpose of your interview?”
     “Mr. Pollard was in a house that was burnt in which a person lost his life, Micheal Cochran. He had Mr. Glazier there, maybe lasted a half hour or so.”
      “Did he also tell you, he had woken up in smoke and had gone out the back door of the camp?”
     “Yes, he did.”
     Ms. Harris asked if Pollard in his March 3, 1981 statement had told him that he tried to grab his clothes, had gone back in to get his boots, and could only get one boot, wrapped some clothes around one foot and went in and out of the back door.
     Shuman replied, “That’s correct.”
     “And in your investigation you discovered that that drop [at the back door] was about seven or eight feet. Is that correct?”
      Almy asked to see the Court at sidebar. He told the Judge, “I don’t think this is relevant.” Judge Beaulieu said, “If this is just something he did investigating the Cochran matter, I’m going to sustain the objection.”
     Harris said, “All right—all right.”
     Harris then went to the subject of the Dolan robberies: “And I believe you already testified, Sir, I guess a couple of days ago now, that in the course of that conversation with Mr. Pollard, Mr. Pollard began to tell you about some robberies in East Corinth?”
     “That is correct.”
     “And when those occurred, you had been aware of them tangentially. You hadn’t been the investigating officer, but you’d been aware of them tangentially?”
     “I was not aware of any robberies.”
     “You were not?”
     “No.”
     “When you went to see Mr. Pollard on February 12th, 1985, were you aware of any robberies on Mr. Dolan?”
     “No, ma’am.”
     “You had no knowledge?”
     “No, ma’am.”
     “You never talked to anybody about that?”
     “Mr. Dolan had come into the Eastern Maine Medical Center in late March of ’81 with his ear cut off. He did not file any complaints and there was no mention of any robberies, no.”
     “So what you’re saying is you were aware back in 1981 about an assault which had taken place, but you didn’t know what the circumstances were?”
     “That is correct.”
     “You had no further communication and no further knowledge about this at all prior to the day, February 12th of 1985 that you spoke with Mr. Pollard.”
     “That’s correct.”
     “You’re sure of that?”
     “Yes.”
     “He also said that he had met you for the first time in Waterville, Maine?”
     “I believe that’s correct.”
     “Is that where the conversation that you told us about in March took place?"
     “No, ma’am.”
     “What conversation did you have with Mr. Pollard in Waterville?”
     At that time, it was shortly after the fire. Mr. Pollard was arrested for a traffic violation. I went down to Waterville, picked him up; and, he said that he would talk to me, but he wanted to talk to me with Mr. Glazier. So we drove back from Waterville to Bangor where we talked to Mr. Glazier, I believe. I believe that’s the way it went.”
     “Now you had a discussion with Mr. Pollard in 1985 when you went to see him at Assumption [College in Worcester], Massachusetts—you indicated that you had had no knowledge of any robberies. Is that correct?”
     “That’s correct.”
     “All right. So it was not until Mr. Pollard told you that there was a robbery, that you found out that there was a robbery?”
     “That is correct.”
     “And it was after that, that then you sought out Mr. Dolan, tried to locate him and talk with him and through his attorney. Is that right?”
     “That is correct.”
     “Now you indicated that the reason you arrested Mr. Pollard was on some unpaid fines on a traffic infraction. Is that right?”
     “I didn’t arrest him. He was arrested, I think, by Waterville police, police department, on an unpaid fine down there in Waterville.”
     “Mr. Shuman, you say that Mr. Pollard was under arrest for some unpaid fines when you first saw him.”
     “I believe it was a traffic fine, yes.”
     “—wasn’t he under arrest for an Indictment up here?”
     “I don't recall. I don’t know. It—it could be. Unless you’ve got something there that—I don’t know.”
     “Mr. Shuman, I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2 and ask you if you recognize that.”
     “Is a copy of an indictment.”
     “Does that refresh your recollection about whether Mr. Pollard was under indictment? Under arrest?"
     “All I know is I went to Waterville and transported him back to Bangor. I didn’t learn till afterwards that he was under indictment for this. I don’t recall.”
     “Mr. Shuman, you had some involvement, did you not, with that charge against Mr. Pollard up here and the subsequent dismissal of that?”
     “Which charge was that? The reckless conduct that you just showed me?”
     “Reckless conduct, yes.”
     “I believe I did.”
     “In fact, you had some dealings with Mr. Pollard and were instrumental in getting that charge dismissed against him. Isn’t that correct?”
     “I don’t believe I was instrumental in getting it dismissed. I think the District Attorney [David Cox] got it dismissed.”
     “You spoke with Mr. Glazier about it.”
     “Yes.”
     “And Mr. Pollard made some statements about Mr. Cormier’s involvement in that. Is that correct?”
     “I don’t recall. I was involved in the arson death of Micheal Cochran and there was a lot going on, and I don’t recall him making statements about Mr. Cormier.”
     Ms. Harris ended her questioning of Shuman by saying, “Your Honor, I believe either Mr. Stern or Mr. Billings was supposed to be over here by now with something I need that I would be putting on next. I need to make a phone call.”
     The judge said there would be a recess.

[While reading Johnson’s discovery documents, I found where Shuman had talked about the Dolan robberies in five of his interviews, months before he went to see Pollard in Massachusetts. I called PI Bucky Buchanan and informed him of this. Buchanan informed Richard Sargent’s defense attorney Marshal Stern. This was what Ms. Harris was waiting for from Mr. Stern’s office.
     After Mr. Billings brought the documents to Ms. Harris, Shuman was called back to the stand. Mr. Billings didn’t leave; he took a seat in the courtroom. I remember him sitting there leaning forward with his hands clasped together in his lap intently listening to Ms. Harris question Shuman.]

     “Mr. Shuman, in connection with your investigation of the Cochran murder, did you have occasion to talk with Sharon Sargent?
     “Yes, I did.”
      Almy immediately asked to see the Court at sidebar.
     Almy told the Judge if Ms. Harris was going to elicit statements from Mr. Shuman concerning what Miss Sargent told Shuman, he believed it would be hearsay.
   The Judge agreed with Almy and said he wouldn’t allow it. He said he would allow Ms. Harris to do a voir dire examination of Det. Shuman and the jury was sent out.
     Harris then asked Shuman if he “had an interview with Miss Sharon Sargent on July 24, 1984, in connection with the fire?”
     Shuman said, “That’s correct.”
     “And I’d ask you, sir, did you have occasion to talk with Miss Sargent about the robberies that are the subject matter of this trial?”
     “I told her I had a suspicion, I had no knowledge.”
     “And did you tell her they did it again?”
     “That’s what I said.”
     “And you told her, they cut his ear off the second time, didn’t you?”
     “They—said they cut his ear off. I asked her, yes.”
     “That was July 24th, 1984. And your interview with Mr. Pollard took place February 12th, 1985?”
     ”That’s correct.”
     Ms. Harris said that she had no further questions.
     Almy said he had no questions.
     The judge then said he would allow Harris to question Shuman in the presence of the jury and they were brought back in.
     “Mr. Shuman, as part of your investigation of the fire and Mr. Cochran’s death, you had occasion to interview a Sharon Sargent?”
     “That’s correct, ma’am.”
     “Mr. Shuman, I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 5 for identification and ask you if you recognize that.”
     “That is a copy of the transcript.”
     “And during that interview, Mr. Shuman, did you have occasion to discuss with Sharon Sargent about the robberies for which we have a trial here today?”
     “Yes, I had.”
     “And did Miss Sargent inform you that Dick and some other people had robbed Mr. Dolan at that time.”
     “She thought they did, yes.”
     “And did you in fact then suggest to her that they had done it again?”
     “I asked her if she knew of any more, that they might have done it again, yes.”
     “And you, in fact, told her that they had done it again and they cut off his ear. Didn’t you?”
     I thought that they did.”
     “And your interview with Paul Pollard was on February 12th, 1985?”
     “That’s correct.”
     “You brought up Mr. Cormier’s name?”
     “Yes, I did.”
     “When had you gotten the information about Mr. Cormier’s name prior to your interview on July 24th, 1984?”
     “I’ve known Mr. Cormier for quite some time.”
     “When had you gotten the information about the two robberies prior to your discussion with Miss Sargent on July 24th, 1984?”
     “I didn’t know about the two robberies. They were not confirmed. I asked her if they had been.”
     “Mr. Shuman, after she told you about the robbery, you told her that was one time; then they did it again. Didn’t you?”
     “I asked her, yes.”
     “And she said to you in response to that, they did it again? She was surprised.”
     “That’s right.”
     “And you said yes, cut off his ear. Is that correct?”
     “That’s correct.”
     “And you then said, “Lionel Cormier.”
    “That’s correct.”
     Ms. Harris said she had no further questions and Almy then questioned Shuman.
     “All of these questions that you were directing to Sharon Sargent were based upon information that you had received. ... She was a person who was not involved in the criminal element; and you were trying to ferret information from her to see, test her to see, how much information she indeed had. Is that correct?”
     “That’s correct.”
     Almy said, “That’s all I have.”
     Ms. Harris again questioned Shuman about where he had received the information about the robberies.
     “At the Bangor Police Department....”
     Ms. Harris said, “Prior to February 12th, 1985?”
     Shuman said, “That’s true.”
     Cormier’s trial ended with Judge Beaulieu excluding Defendant’s Exhibit No. 5. He said, Det. Shuman's] testimony is on the record.”

Harris only used Shuman’s July 24, 1984 interview of police informant Sharon Sargent to try impeach Mr. Shuman and show that he committed perjury, but Shuman’s October 16, 1984 interview of police informant David Harriman was even more blatant. I have no idea why Harris didn’t use the Harriman interview. Was it because Shuman never used Harriman’s information during his corrupt investigation of Mike’s murder?
 
Return