Judge leaves door open for Dechaine

ROCKLAND – Convicted child killer Dennis Dechaine still may get his day in court.

Justice Carl O. Bradford ruled last week that Dechaine may seek a new trial at a future date based on postconviction DNA analysis.

In September, Dechaine’s defense team withdrew his motion for postconviction DNA analysis and a new trial because it had concerns about meeting the burden of proof required by Maine law.

Dechaine, 47, is serving a life sentence at Maine State Prison in Warren for the 1988 torture-murder of 12-year-old baby sitter Sarah Cherry of Bowdoin.

Cherry disappeared on July 6, 1988, from a home where she was baby-sitting. Her body was found days later. She had been raped with sticks, strangled with a scarf and stabbed repeatedly with a small blade in the head, neck and chest.

In September, Dechaine’s defense team withdrew its bid for a new trial just before a hearing on the motion was to begin in Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland. Bradford had limited that hearing to DNA evidence that was not available when the case went to trial. But he rejected Dechaine’s request to discuss, among other things, an alternative suspect.

Dechaine attorneys, Michaela Murphy of Skowhegan and Steven Peterson of Rockport, told the judge the burden of proof surrounding Maine’s postconviction DNA law is “unconstitutionally high.” They plan to petition the Legislature to amend the law, broadening the scope of evidence that may be presented.

Under current Maine law, a person must prove DNA evidence came from the perpetrator, Peterson said Tuesday, noting the only other state with such a high burden of proof is Michigan. Essentially, one has to prove who the murderer is, he said.

In objecting to the withdrawal, the state sought to dismiss the motion for a new trial, arguing that Dechaine’s attorneys had deliberately, intentionally and strategically waived and abandoned the motion. The state also said the last-minute withdrawal had cost the state money for retaining experts and preparing for the hearing.

Last week, Bradford wrote in his order: “There is no express prohibition against withdrawing a motion. In this case, although the state has incurred expense in preparing for the hearing, that expense does not rise to the level of prejudice.

“Furthermore, there is no evidence that the petitioner acted in bad faith. Rather, in light of the fact that the scope of the DNA analysis hearing was uncertain until one week before the date of the hearing, petitioner’s strategic move to withdraw his motion was reasonable,” the judge wrote. “Ultimately, however, the court does not have the statutory authority to dismiss this motion with prejudice.”

Assistant Attorney General William Stokes declined to comment Tuesday on the judge’s ruling.

“We’re grateful Justice Bradford followed the law exactly how it was given to him by the Legislature,” Murphy said, noting the team will wait until the Legislative process concludes before filing new motions.