Panel: No misconduct in case

By By DAVID HENCH, Staff Writer
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

An outside review of Dennis Dechaine's conviction for the 1988 murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry has cleared investigators and prosecutors of misconduct during the high-profile case.

The review of the case was launched in 2004 at the request of Attorney General Steve Rowe after Dechaine's supporters contended that investigators misrepresented their case during trial and that prosecutors withheld important information from the jury and later destroyed evidence.

"I am satisfied and I hope that reasonable Maine people will be satisfied that Dechaine's conviction was not the result of police or prosecutorial misconduct," Rowe said Monday in a written statement announcing the conclusions of the panel.

The review was done by retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Eugene Beaulieu and Bangor attorneys Marvin Glazier and Charles Abbott.

But critics of the government's handling of the case remain unconvinced.

"The people of Maine lost out here. If these panel members think this case was handled properly, this state is in big trouble," said Jim Moore, author of "Human Sacrifice," a book about Dechaine's conviction that raises questions about the state's handling of the case. "It looks kind of like a trial where the jury only hears the prosecution I expected something a little more objective."

Police found Cherry's body in the woods in Bowdoin in July 1988, about 400 feet from where Dechaine's pickup truck was found parked the night of her disappearance.

Dechaine, who lived in the next town over, was questioned by police after walking out of the woods that night. He said he'd gotten lost while fishing, but he later admitted he'd been injecting speed.

A car-repair bill and notebook belonging to Dechaine were found in the driveway of the home from which Cherry had disappeared. The rope that bound the girl was of the same material as rope found in the back of Dechaine's truck. Police said Dechaine confessed to the murder, but he insists that his words were twisted.

At his trial in March 1989, a jury deliberated nine hours before finding him guilty of murder. Justice Carl Bradford sentenced Dechaine, then 31, to life in prison. Dechaine appealed his conviction and it has been reviewed on several occasions but in each case, the conviction has been upheld.

His latest appeal was withdrawn last year to wait for changes in the state's law allowing new trials based on DNA evidence. That law takes effect in September.

The report was withheld from the public until Monday at the request of Dechaine's lawyers until his court proceedings and legislative action on the DNA bill was complete, its authors said.

In a letter released by the Attorney General's Office, Glazier wrote that following interviews of those involved in the case and a review of the evidence, "we find that none of the allegations set forth to us have any substantive merit."

The review sought to respond to five allegations posed by critics of the state:
Rowe said he asked for the review "to ensure continued public confidence in the Office of the Attorney General as well as other law-enforcement agencies in the state of Maine."

The panel interviewed the officers and prosecutors involved and reviewed their case notes and evidence from the Dechaine file maintained by the Attorney General's Office. The panel's review addresses each allegation specifically, though in all but one case, does so in a simple, short paragraph suggesting the officers and prosecutors did nothing inappropriate.

There is little supporting analysis explaining how the attorneys reached their conclusion.

Dechaine's attorney, Michaela Murphy, said the report is less than complete because the investigators didn't talk to any of several lawyers who have represented Dechaine.

"I think it's pretty basic to our system of justice that you talk to both sides before an opinion is formed," said Murphy. She also questioned how much will be gained by releasing the report.

"I think this is a case that needs to be resolved in a courtroom and not in press releases from either side," Murphy said.

"I hoped there would be more after two years," Moore said. "Somehow I don't think a jury of level-headed Mainers would agree with this panel if they were to get to hear the evidence the prosecution concealed."

Moore noted how some officers' field notes about what Dechaine said differed from their testimony, which he said was much more incriminating. He also said that the original estimate on Cherry's time of death was that it occurred after Dechaine was already in custody.

The panel's analysis with regard to the officers' statements says in part: "We find no dishonesty in any of the officers' testimony with regard to the preparation of notes. Whether or not any statements attributed to Mr. Dechaine were made was an issue for the jury, for the Courts to decide."

As far as the prosecution's handling of the time of the girl's death, the panel says only that then-prosecutor Eric Wright did not act inappropriately.

The panel also said authorities did not intentionally destroy evidence, though the state has conceded that officials authorized destruction of some evidence from the scene after the trial was completed.

The only point on which the panel was somewhat critical of the state dealt with a consultant's report on whether DNA analysis performed for the defense was reliable. The consultant's report said the testing

which showed the presence of DNA from someone other than Dechaine under Cherry's thumbnails

was valid.

Deputy Attorney General William Stokes did not notify the court and defense about the report because he did not believe it was required during the post-conviction review, the panel said.

"Better practice may have been for Mr. Stokes to have given this report immediately to Mr. Dechaine's defense counsel. However, we find that Mr. Stokes' action was not improper under the circumstances," the review says.

Eric Wright, the former assistant attorney general who prosecuted Dechaine, said Monday he was not surprised that the commission did not go into more detail.

"I assume the report was so brief because they decided that it had no merit," Wright said. "It speaks for itself."

Wright was pleased with the commission's findings, but said he did not feel vindicated by the response.

"I never thought I did anything that required vindication, and I thought when the professionals looked at it, that's what they'd see," Wright said.

Staff Writer Gregory D. Kesich and The Associated Press contributed to this report.