Marvin Glazier, Paul Pollard's attorney, testifies

Trial transcripts Mr. Glazier was asked when he first started representing Paul Pollard and he replied that it was approximately March 2, 1981 when he first started representing Paul Pollard. [It was March 3, 1981.]      Ms. Harris asked, “... [D]id you have an occasion to discuss with Mr. Pollard certain burglaries and robberies in which Pollard participated?”      Glazier said he would need instruction from the Court as to whether he could answer Ms. Harris’ question.      Judge Beaulieu said, “If he [Pollard] is here, we’ll get the client here. If he says yes or no, then we’ll decide. Is he here?”      Almy spoke up and said, “He’s here at the Court[’s] order.”      The Judge said they would recess until Ms. Harris, Mr. Almy, and Mr. Glazier could meet with Pollard. After a recess, Ms. Harris told the Judge, “Mr. Glazier indicates that Mr. Pollard will allow him to testify about incidents relating to some firearms and dynamite which was turned in sometime after November of 1981, but will not allow Mr. Glazier to ask [sic] any questions which would be inquired of him relating to the fire incident as with the Cochran situation.”     The Judge asked Ms. Harris if she was satisfied for the record that we can proceed that way.      “Your Honor, I think the Court ought to make a determination as to whether Mr. Pollard is able to waive part of his attorney-client privilege and not others.”      The Judge said he was satisfied that he would not allow any question that fell within the attorney-client unless that question was specifically waived. I don’t think it’s like a Defendant in a criminal case taking the stand and saying, ‘do you want to testify to parts of things and not other things?’”      Ms. Harris said she would ask some questions and assume that Mr. Glazier would say when he no longer could answer. Glazier agreed by nodding his head.      “... [D]id your representation include a matter where there was a fire in Lucerne and the death of Micheal Cochran?”      Glazier said, “Well, that’s a hard question to answer because I was representing Mr. Pollard on an indictment that had nothing to do with that incident at all, but this was all part of discussions that he was having with the State Police with regard to the fire.... It all happened at the same time. In other words, he was arrested and put in [Penobscot County] jail on the Indictment and, while he was in jail, the police wanted to meet with him about the fire. So he was my client as far as I was concerned, even though I wasn’t appointed for the fire incident itself.”      “And you were appointed for a charge in this Court of reckless conduct with the use of a dangerous weapon—[and] in October of 1981 the Indictment for which you were representing him was dismissed?”      Mr. Glazier said that both the District Attorney [David Cox] and Assistant Attorney General [Pasquale Perrino] dismissed the Indictment against Paul Pollard for reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.       “My memory is that I never discussed it with the Assistant Attorney General. I may have had some discussions with Barry Shuman ..."      "Sometime subsequent to that dismissal and your stopping representation on that particular charge, did you receive some communication from Mr. Pollard relating to some stolen items that he had in his possession?”      Mr. Glazier said his communication came either from Mr. Pollard or from Owen Pollard. “He told me he had items in his possession that were stolen and they turned out to be some firearms and some dynamite. All I can tell you is that he had the items. I’m not sure if those items were in his possession when he was talking with me or if they were in some other place; and I know that some of the items were taken from the Bangor area, but I don’t remember if it was the firearms or the dynamite.”      Harris asked, “Did you subsequently have any discussion about his [Pollard’s] participation in the taking of those items?”      Glazier said, “If I had any discussion with him at that time, I do not remember what that discussion was. I didn’t ask him a lot of questions about it. He only indicated that he had it and he wanted to have it turned over to the proper authorities and wanted me to help doing that. I said I would. The next morning, early in the morning, Owen Pollard drove to Bangor, met me at my office, and we transferred the items from Owen Pollard’s vehicle into my vehicle. And I immediately took the items to the Bangor Police Department.”      “I have no further questions. I would inquire obviously into the communications relating to the fire, but I understand the Court ruling that that would be foreclosed, as he’s exercising the privilege.”      Judge Beaulieu said, “I would exclude the testimony. I do not believe it’s relevant to the issue in any event, and I don’t believe under Rule 403 it’s admissible in any event. He then asked Almy, “You want to ask some questions for the record?      Almy said, “Mr. Glazier, Mr. Pollard indicated to you in those discussions about the dynamite and the gun  that he did not take it, he had it, and he indicated he had gotten it from his brother?”      Mr. Glazier said, “No, that’s not correct. I did not indicate to you that he said he stole it or didn’t stole [sic] it. My recollection is that he had it, and I don’t recollect specifically how he came about having it except I knew it was stolen, if that’s what you mean.”      Ms. Harris said that was all she had for Glazier and then called Shuman back to the stand.

Homicide Det. Shuman testifies

Return