Still searching for Dechaine's justice

About the Author

James P. Moore, who lives in Brunswick, is the author of "Human Sacrifice," a 2002 book challenging the facts in the state's case against Dennis Dechaine.

To top of story

The panel members, who recently concluded that police and prosecutors in the Dennis Dechaine case acted within the bounds of the law, might be "distinguished attorneys," but they're Attorney General Steven Rowe's distinguished lawyers.

Attorney General Rowe needed to defend his office against accusations of impropriety.

His response: "I'll pick three lawyers, and you'll accept what they tell you - without question, without explanation."

This panel admits that all it did was look at some documents and accept the (never revealed) excuses offered by the men accused of misconduct. The panel never consulted Dechaine's attorneys or any of his supporters.

A Portland Press Herald editorial of Aug. 23 ("Review shows again trial of Dechaine fair if not perfect") says that Sarah Cherry's time of death and the unexplained DNA evidence "didn't get a full hearing" at Dechaine's trial.

Time of death was obscured from pre-trial discovery onward. All DNA evidence was squelched, based on the prosecutor's argument that people wanted a quick resolution to the case, so we can't sit around waiting for DNA tests.

How many defendants have you heard requesting DNA tests before trial, asking the prosecutor to have the test performed, himself, and offering to pay for it?

After Dechaine's trial, when he filed an appeal, the state promptly incinerated the rape kit and other items containing additional DNA. Rowe's panel says that's OK.

The Press Herald calls a fair trial one where "each side is given an opportunity to make its best arguments." It's pretty hard to do that when one side hides the ball.

The Press Herald says "the prosecution's obligations begin and end with the law."

Fine. But prosecutors violated the American Bar Association's rules, namely Standard 3-3.11 Disclosure of Evidence by the Prosecutor, which says:

"(A) A prosecutor should not intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the defense, at the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of all evidence or information which tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment of the accused.

"(B) A prosecutor should not fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request.

"(C) A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence because he or she believes it will damage the prosecution's case or aid the accused."

Officials and some others claim my book, "Human Sacrifice," is full of lies. And, yet, in the four years since its publication, none has pointed to a single untrue sentence in that book regarding the evidence or the official misconduct.

Even after I announced a $1,000 reward for anybody who could cite such an untruth, nobody has come up with any.

Unlike the AG's panel, my books document their statements with the state's own, previously concealed evidence. The AG's lawyers just say, "Take our word for it."

The second edition of "Human Sacrifice" and my booklet, "State Secrets" (online at trialanderrordennis.org) both detail evidence of official misconduct - revealed when the legislature ordered the AG's file opened.

These books also include evidence the state was still hiding - facts uncovered through the lawsuit I filed in Superior Court, then appealed to Maine's Supreme Court.

My first question is: Why should I or any citizen have to pay $240 in court costs to make our officials obey the law?

My second question is: How can anybody close a case based on the unsubstantiated word of the attorney general's trio of handpicked lawyers?

The big question is: What's wrong with having a trial where jurors hear all the evidence?

Reader comments
Post your comment here:

To top of page