Trial of suspected drug dealer postponed

CARIBOU – The case of a suspected drug dealer from Van Buren is going back to the state supreme court.

Randolph LaPierre, 48, was scheduled to be retried this week in Aroostook County Superior Court, but his lawyer decided to appeal a double-jeopardy issue to the high court first.

The Van Buren man was convicted of trafficking in scheduled drugs and conspiracy to traffic in scheduled drugs. After a trial in February of 1999, he was sentenced to two years in jail, four years of probation and payment of a $16,000 fine.

That conviction was overturned by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court last year. The high court said the instructions given to the jury were confusing.

A jury was scheduled to be selected this morning, but the trial was postponed when the defense attorney, Daniel Lilley of Portland, filed an appeal.

According to court records, LaPierre now lives in Arundel.

Prosecutors charged that LaPierre was the brains behind a marijuana-growing operation in a Van Buren trailer during the winter of 1997-1998. More than 700 plants were found, which at the time was the most confiscated by police in a single bust in Aroostook County.

At the time, LaPierre was in Florida working as a trucker and Ralph Dumond, who also was prosecuted and cooperated with police during the investigation, was caring for the plants.

Late last month, Superior Court Justice Paul T. Pierson, the same judge who presided during the first trial, wrote that he found no double jeopardy violation. In his motion, Lilley claimed retrying LaPierre would be a violation of his constitutional protection from double jeopardy, (being tried for the same crime more than once) under state and federal constitutions.

Lilley also argued that the judge’s instructions gave the first trial’s jury too many options on finding his client guilty. Prosecutor John Pluto had asked that the judge include instructions on lesser offenses included in the law regarding trafficking.

“The state’s request to instruct on the less-included offenses and the court’s acquiescence effectively prevented Mr. LaPierre from having the jury find him innocent,” Lilley’s motion said.

The additional instructions had been given during deliberations while the jury had questions.

The Portland attorney has further argued that a key state witness, Bertha Moore, has apologized to LaPierre for “falsely accusing him.”

LaPierre can’t financially afford another trial, Lilley argued, saying his client’s financial situation was “devastated.”

The defense motion also argued that the state made deals with the “wrong people,” namely Moore and Dumond.

As a result, prosecutors are attempting to “vindicate” themselves by continuing an “overzealous prosecution of an innocent man.”

The state’s answer, filed by Pluto, said the defense’s arguments were not matters objected to during the initial trial.

In addition, the defense provided no case law to support the idea that the prosecution should not continue after the high court found that the prosecutor was wrong to ask a trial court to instruct a jury a certain way, the state argued.

The defendant also offered no proof regarding his financial situation. In earlier court documents, Pluto cited that LaPierre spent $25,000 in legal fees.

“The state believes that the state was probably significantly outspent by the defendant,” said the prosecutor’s argument.

Another issue pending before the Superior Court is whether the state will be able to use during a second trial a taped telephone conversation between LaPierre and Dumond that occurred after Dumond was arrested when the plants were found.

The FBI has since enhanced the tape, which was played during the first trial. Prosecutors also want to distribute a transcription of the tape to the jury.