St. Albans, Vt.
At a hearing on Monday afternoon, an attorney representing former Sen. Norm McAllister, R-Franklin, sought to dismiss a case against him, arguing that the prosecution improperly withheld information that could be used in the defense.
McAllister is scheduled to go to trial on charges he sexually assaulted a woman who was living in a trailer on his Highgate, Vt., farm. The jury selection process is set to begin on July 10.
If the case is not dismissed, McAllister’s attorney Bob Katims argued, it should be postponed to allow more time to go through the material the defense received from the state earlier this month.
The prosecutor agreed with Katims that a delay would be appropriate. But when Franklin County Superior Court Judge Martin Maley left the courtroom on Monday, the trial was still set to begin next month.
However, he said, he will issue a decision on that and other motions in the case later this week.
It’s the latest development in a case that has gone on for more than two years.
McAllister was arrested in May 2015 while leaving the Statehouse amid accusations that he sexually assaulted two women.
The first trial, involving a woman who worked as an intern in Montpelier for McAllister, began last summer. The prosecutor dropped that case after it emerged that the woman had lied about her relationship with another person who worked on McAllister’s farm.
McAllister was set to go to trial for the second case in January but entered into a plea deal after a jury had already been selected.
But a short time later, he fired his defense team and asked to withdraw his no-contest plea, saying he accepted the deal “under pressure” from his attorneys.
A judge allowed the withdrawal of his plea in March, setting the case on a path toward trial again.
At Monday’s hearing, Katims argued that the state did not provide McAllister’s defense attorneys with information about McAllister’s accuser from a separate 2012 investigation into reported domestic violence by her then-husband.
The judge is expected to issue decisions on the various motions later this week.
The defense received the information earlier this month only after asking for it, he said in court.
According to a motion to dismiss, the information includes details from the 2012 case, such as that the woman told the prosecutor before she was set to testify against her then-husband that she “hears voices” and doesn’t know “if when she testifies it is from ‘the voice’ or from her head.”
Katims argued that the prosecutor’s office violated its obligation to the defendant by failing to share the information from 2012 earlier, and that prosecutors should face a punishment for that.
“We’re asking for the sanction of dismissal,” Katims said.
However, he acknowledged that is an extreme request. He argued that if the case is not dismissed, the trial at least should be postponed because going ahead as planned would be unfair to McAllister.
“We are at a bare minimum asking for more time,” he said.
Franklin County Deputy State’s Attorney John Lavoie agreed that a postponement is appropriate.
“We do believe that Mr. Katims should have more time to explore this area,” Lavoie said.
Katims also is seeking a psychiatric evaluation of the accuser.
The attorneys also sparred Monday over whether to allow evidence from McAllister’s previous trial.
At the hearing, Lavoie argued for allowing that evidence to be included when the second trial proceeds. He also asked to include evidence from a third woman who has since died, the mother-in-law of the woman involved in the pending case.
A question remains as to what portion of recorded phone conversations, in which McAllister could be interpreted as propositioning her in exchange for her son’s rent, can be played during the trial.
Lavoie argued that the evidence is relevant because it demonstrates “the defendant’s plan to exploit the various people in his employ or to whom he offered housing for the purposes of his sexual gratification.”
Katims argued that the charges at the center of this trial are “distinct” allegations.
He said the defense has been preparing for trial assuming the case was not going to be “three trials in one” and that if the evidence is included, the defense will need more time.
The judge is expected to issue decisions on the various motions later this week.