|
|
|
|
Accused illegal Jay trail cutter fires attorney, insists he has deal with the state |
|
|
Monday, 20 October 2008 |
By STEVE BLAKE
Managing Editor
Paul Poulin has the impression the American judicial system, including his attorney, arguably one of the best in the state, is trying to railroad him.
Poulin, 48, of Derby Line, one of the two men accused of cutting a ski
trail down Big Jay Mountain in July 2007, fired David Sleigh during a
court hearing Wednesday morning, Oct. 15.
In a letter to the state in August this year, Poulin wrote that he has
found Sleigh “incompetent, as he was unable to answer some critical
questions.”
Poulin and Alan Ritter were charged with felony counts of unlawful
mischief on Sept. 1, 2007. Both pled innocent and were released without
bail under the condition they stay away from Big Jay.
The illegal swath was discovered and reported by a state forester and a
member of the Green Mountain Club on July 12, 2007, according to an
affidavit from state Game Warden Bradley Mann. Poulin and Ritter were
seen on the mountain with logging tools.
The affidavit says the cut strip was 3,000 feet long on a slope up to
75 percent, including a cliff face and a small stream. The swath was 16
feet to 65 feet wide. A total of 873 trees were cut, mostly one to
three inches in diameter. State Forester Jim Horton found that the cost
of replacing the trees would be $47,800.
If convicted, the men could each face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
One of Poulin’s questions, he said in an interview Wednesday after the
hearing, is what happened to his motion to dismiss the charge.
Court records show that Sleigh filed the motion on June 26, 2008. Judge
Walter Morris, however recused himself at the time because of a
conflict of interest, and there was never a ruling on the motion.
The state offered Poulin and Ritter a deal in August by way of a letter
to their respective lawyers, Sleigh and Public Defender Jill Jourdan.
In return for guilty pleas, the defendants would avoid prison time.
The state offered a sentence of 18 to 36 months to serve on probation
with 60 days on a work crew on preapproved furlough. Special terms of
the probation would include a condition that the men stay away from Big
Jay Mountain while on probation, and they complete the Reparative Board
program.
Restitution would be set at a later hearing unless the state and the defendants could agree on a stipulated settlement.
Poulin, however, doesn’t think the amount of the restitution should be
the nearly $48,000 cost of replacing the trees. Although the settlement
has not been determined, he wants to know beforehand what it would cost
him.
Poulin replied in a letter to Deputy State’s Attorney Joe Malgeri dated
Sept. 25, notifying the state of “conditional acceptance” of the
state’s offer. To fully accept the offer, Poulin wrote, he needed the
answers to some questions. It was in that letter he informed the state
that he was discharging Sleigh.
Poulin asked Malgeri to produce the statute that allows the law to
charge restitution based on the replacement value of the trees. The
state forester, Horton, said in a deposition, according to Poulin’s
letter, that that method of valuation has never been used in such
cases. Poulin also asked who directed Horton to use replacement value
rather than “standard commercial value.”
His letter asked why the Jay Peak Resort was allowed to cut a 1.5-mile
trail from the top of Jay Peak to the top of Big Jay in 1999 without
being charged. Ski areas and other corporations make improvements above
the 2,500-foot elevation, he wrote. They follow the permitting process.
“Please explain with reference of law.”
Malgeri, however, has declined to respond to Poulin’s questions. Poulin
submitted on Oct. 6, a “notice of dishonor” for the state’s refusal to
give him answers.
Malgeri still refused to answer the questions at Wednesday’s hearing before Judge Robert Bent.
“I have no intention of responding,” Malgeri said. “Discovery is complete, he can accept or reject the offer.”
There is no state statute regarding the valuation of damages, he said.
He said there is sufficient evidence to prove it was more than $1,000,
which makes the charge a felony.
Malgeri said he has spoken with the defendants’ attorneys, and they
indicated they would be willing to negotiate. He said Poulin “may be
better off resolving this in an amicable way.”
The judge pointed out to Poulin that the amount of the restitution has
yet to be determined. If the case goes to a jury, they could use a
different form of valuation, he said.
“The answers might not be what you want at the end of the case.”
Poulin repeatedly insisted to the judge that he has conditionally
accepted the state’s offer. Bent countered that he would not recognize
his acceptance of the agreement with conditions.
“The court’s view is, you don’t have an agreement,” the judge said. He said he will put the case on the trial list.
Throughout most of the hearing Sleigh sat quietly beside Poulin at the
defendant’s table while the defendant himself addressed the court.
When asked by the judge, however, the defense attorney said he has
explained to Poulin that a jury would have wide discretion on how to
assess damages.
“The issue comes down to valuation,” Sleigh said. Letting a jury decide would be a “risky route.”
The judge recessed the hearing to give Poulin and Sleigh time to speak
privately. Five minutes later they emerged from a conference room with
the understanding that Sleigh would no longer represent him.
Poulin said after the hearing that he asked Sleigh in the conference
room what happened to the motion to dismiss, but he didn’t answer.
Poulin told the judge that he would file a motion to dismiss the charge
based on the state’s failure to respond to his queries. He continued to
insist he has an agreement with the state, with conditions. But the
judge didn’t buy it.
Bent suggested Poulin speak to an attorney.
“This is a complicated issue,” he said. Views of how forest land is regarded are changing.
“This process will unfold under the rules of criminal procedure,” he said. “I will have you back to tell me what you will do.”
The court has scheduled an “attorney or appear” hearing with Poulin for
Tuesday, Oct. 28. A change of plea hearing follows the next day.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 28 October 2008 )
|
|
|
|
