| 07/17/2007 |
| Testimony begins in Lapointe's second bid for a new trial in 1987 rape-murder of former wife's grandmother in Manchester |
| By:Lee Sawyer , Journal Inquirer |
|
VERNON - Richard A. Lapointe, who is serving a life sentence
for the 1987 rape and murder of his wife's grandmother in
Manchester, won a round in Superior Court on Monday when a
judge ruled his former lawyer must testify as Lapointe seeks
a new trial.
Lapointe, formerly of Manchester, is seeking a new trial on
grounds his former lawyer, Henry T. Vogt, who represented him
during his first bid for a new trial in 2000, was incompetent.Also Monday, evidence trumpeted by Lapointe's legal team as exculpatory was deflated by the testimony of former law enforcement officers and a defense expert witness' missteps under cross-examination. Lapointe, formerly of Manchester, was convicted 15 years ago in the rape and murder of his wife's grandmother, Bernice Martin. Three fires also were set in Martin's home by the killer, one on a couch near her body, police have said. The Lapointe case has been rife with allegations of miscues by lawyers and misconduct by police. Lapointe's current legal team hopes to convince Fuger that Vogt overlooked key evidence and lacked the legal expertise to adequately represent Lapointe. In 2000 during Lapointe's his first bid for a new trial, Vogt argued that new evidence about the mental condition affecting Lapointe showed he didn't have the intellectual wherewithal to voluntarily participate in the Manchester police interrogation that led to his confession. He further charged that prosecutors had withheld key evidence, and claimed that Lapointe's original defense team had ignored important evidence that suggested he was innocent and made a series of procedural gaffes that made an appeal difficult. Lapointe's supporters attempted to fire Vogt in the midst of the 2000 habeas corpus trial when it became apparent their case was in trouble. However, the judge refused to allow the change. Now, Lapointe's latest defense team, lawyers James Cousins of Norwalk and Paul Casteleiro of New Jersey, are seeking to show that Vogt botched the first habeas corpus case. They have subpoenaed Vogt to testify, a move Vogt's lawyer attempted to quash, claiming it would require Vogt to violate his ethical mandate to act in the best interests of his former client, Lapointe. Fuger, noting that embracing the motion to quash the subpoena would "destroy the case," said that Vogt's lawyer, Leonard M. Isaac, had no legal standing to bring such a motion. Isaac then changed his approach, arguing that Lapointe had yet to waive the attorney-client privilege that bound him to Vogt, and even if he did, he might not be competent to do so. He suggested a public defender be appointed for Lapointe, and his ability to competently waive his privilege be assessed, a suggestion Fuger rejected. Casteleiro said Isaac's argument "borders on the absurd," and said Vogt was just trying to avoid answering questions regarding his competence. Fuger had heard enough. "You come in here at the 11th hour," he told Isaac. "It's been on the docket for five years, and you don't even have standing." He denied the motion. In order to prevail in their bid for a new trail, Lapointe's lawyers mush show not only that Vogt erred in the first habeas corpus trial, but that the evidence he's said to have overlooked has significant importance to Lapointe's defense. One item of evidence his lawyers say was overlooked is a note written by former Manchester police Detective Michael Ludlow, who was assigned to investigate the Martin murder case. The note indicates the fire in Martin's home burned slowly, and includes the notation "30-40 mins poss," which Casteleiro suggested represented the estimated duration of the fire. If the fire was set 40 minutes before it was reported at 8:27 p.m., Lapointe was at home with his wife and child at the time, according to his then-wife's account to police. If the fire started earlier, between 6:15 and 7 p.m., it was during a period of time Lapointe's then-wife reported she was upstairs in their home bathing their son, and couldn't be certain of Lapointe's whereabouts. Although lawyers have argued the 45-minute time span wasn't enough for Lapointe to have committed the crime - he would have had to walk to Martin's apartment, commit the act, and walk home - their contention would be bolstered if the duration of the fire could be narrowed down. Witness testimony Monday did little to accomplish that objective. Ludlow testified that his notation represented a minimum fire duration of 30-40 minutes, estimated to generate a "window" in which the killer was in the area. The killer is assumed to have fled after starting the fire, and Martin was last seen at 5:45 p.m., so by knowing the minimum duration, investigators could focus on a more specific timeframe. This was particularly important, Ludlow testified, when it came to interviewing potential witnesses who may have seen the killer in the area. Stephan Igoe, a former state trooper and fire investigator for the state fire marshal's office, testified he never made an estimate of the duration of the fire because it wasn't his practice to do so. "There's too many different variables for me to guess when a fire started," Igoe testified. He said the fire could have burned from as little as 15 minutes to "several hours." The defense team's fire expert, Gerald J. Kelder, Jr. of New York offered what he said was photographic evidence that the fire burned for 45 minutes to one hour. He testified that he based his estimate on his extensive experience investigating fires, and the apparent levels of fire damage seen in police photographs. He also reviewed reports by firefighters, he said. His estimate was challenged by prosecutor Michael O'Hare on cross-examination. Kelder's answers revealed he was unsure whether the structure was vented, an important factor in fire duration. He also had no information on the material that Martin's couch was made of, which was the main source of smoke in the apartment, and thus couldn't be sure whether it burned rapidly or slowly. Despite an apparent setback Monday regarding the fire evidence, Lapointe's lawyers plan to raise a number of other issues as the case proceeds, including claims that police witnesses lied on the witness stand in the first habeas hearing and the original trial, and were not appropriately confronted by Vogt. The trial is scheduled to last two weeks. The proceeding is an important one for advocates for people with disabilities, and more than two dozen of Lapointe's supporters packed the courtroom Monday as his defense team began calling witnesses. Lapointe has a congenital brain malformation that affects his coordination and dexterity, and may impair his cognitive function. He was convicted in 1992 of the March 1987 rape and murder of Martin at her Manchester apartment, where she lived alone. Her half-clothed and bloody body was found by firefighters responding to Lapointe's 911 call, made after he went to check on her and saw smoke. Her arms had been bound with cloth strips cut from her own clothes, with one tied tightly around her neck, strangling her, police have said. She had been stabbed 11 times, and had bruises and severe burns on her body. There was a semen stain on the carpet and a blood drop. Tests showed the blood type associated with the evidence matched that of Lapointe - along with approximately 28 percent of the adult male population. Lapointe signed three confessions during a 9˝-hour Manchester police interrogation in 1989, but recanted immediately afterwards. His advocates argue he was intimidated by the police, was denied a lawyer, and was easily manipulated because of his mental condition, which is said to include low "social intelligence." At the Manchester Police Department, detectives had fabricated props, such as a make-believe DNA comparison, designed to convince Lapointe they had evidence against him. His confession also did not square with what his then-wife told police - she said he was with her all day, and the only time he was out of her sight was when she was giving their child a bath.
|