The State is entering nolles, effectively ending the
prosecution of this matter today. I will detail the reasons
and factors considered in coming to this decision. However, by terminating this prosecution today, the State in no way is declaring Richard Lapointe innocent of the killing of Bernice Martin, the 88 year old grandmother of his wife. This is not an exoneration by the State. Through my review of all of the Court proceedings that dealt with this prosecution over the past twenty-six years there never was or has been any allegation that the police investigation or the prosecution of the defendant involved misconduct on anyones part.
Despite my
decision to nolle the charges today, it is the States belief,
that the defendant is responsible for the assault and killing
of Bernice Martin. The evidence submitted to a jury led to
such a result, the conviction was based on sound evidence, and subsequent appellate court decisions do not change the States view of the evidence. To the contrary, the States action today is a result of assessing the evidence it has today and predicting a likely outcome should this matter go to trial. It is my opinion that the State would not be able to meet its high burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. From the onset, I will indicate, the State respectfully does not share the same opinion of the evidence and the conclusions drawn that the majority held in the Supreme Court ruling that effectively vacated the defendants conviction and remanded the matter to this court for a
new trial.
The State vigorously defended the trial
proceedings in which the defendant was convicted in
1992. Nonetheless, the rulings of the Supreme Court are binding and the State is now called upon to consider the remainder of the evidence as it exists today and determine now how it proceeds in accordance with those rulings. I have grouped the evidence into three categories. The first Crime scene evidence and any potential forensic analysis. The State needed to assure itself that all of the physical evidence, suitable for testing was analyzed prior to making a decision about the future of this prosecution. Although some items had been tested by defense hired
laboratories over the last several years, some items
remained unanalyzed despite their availability. I wish to extend an immeasurable degree of gratitude to the State laboratory for undertaking this task over the past several months. Their willingness to exhaust all potential avenues of analysis is appreciated. The potential for fruitful forensic results was frought with obstacles and challenges. It was well documented that several pieces of evidence had been touched by others, over the past several years, corrupting the viability of obtaining a reliable result. Another potential piece of evidence was contaminated by a separate forensic lab falsely identifying a suspect. Finally, the sheer passage of time
decreased
the
potential
for
the
successful
identification of DNA material. Here we are dealing with
evidence collected nearly thirty years ago. The bottom line is, none of the additional analysis identified Richard Lapointe as a contributor. Of the items analyzed, at least two and maybe three additional male profiles were located. We are unable to identify these profiles and in the States opinion, they do not paint a picture of a different attacker responsible for the killing of Bernice Martin. Simply stated, results from the exhaustive additional analysis do not aid the State in proceeding further with the prosecution. The second category of evidence concerns various things the defendant said or did in the presence of friends or family members that point to his guilt. Though these
witnesses testified at trial in 1992, a majority of the
witnesses are now unavailable. The impact of a written transcript would significantly affect the strength of the States case and quite frankly, this evidence does not directly connect the defendant to the offense. The final category of the States evidence concerns all statements the defendant made to law enforcement, which ultimately, the State would concede, were pivotal in the conviction of Richad Lapointe. The defendant confessed to sexually assaulting and killing Bernice Martin and then starting a fire in her apartment to destroy evidence of the crime.
This
evidence most certainly played a large role in the
defendants conviction.
Although the Supreme Court in its latest ruling did
not
overturn
its
original
decision
affirming
the
admissibility of the defendants statements, the recent
ruling casts doubt and concerns upon the reliability or trustworthiness of the statements. Regardless of whether I share this opinion, the net result of this new characterization by the Supreme Court clearly diminishes the probative impact of the defendants statements to the police. As such, in moving forward the State recognizes the
characterization
of
these
statements
to
law
enforcement and conclude that they would have a
diminished effect on the trier of fact even if they were deemed admissible at trial.
In all candor, the progression of this case that
ultimately brought the matter to me is absolutely extraordinary. My task in assessing the evidence, and additionally how it was remanded for a new trial has been extremely challenging. At this time, there is simply no reason to restate that circumstances of the crimes committed upon Bernice Martin.
However, I had the
opportunity to speak with several grandchildren of Mrs.
Martin.
They are understandably frustrated with the
outcome today, yet they have been nothing but gracious
and understanding of the situation. In short, I know what my obligations are as a prosecutor. The evidence that the State has today causes me to conclude that the State cannot meet its burden of
proof if we were to proceed to trial. The charges the