PORTLAND — A Lewiston man sentenced to 14 months in prison following a brawl with law enforcement appealed to the state’s highest court to overturn that decision on the grounds that police wrongly attacked him first.
A lawyer for Nicholas Begin told justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday morning that inflammatory police testimony and inappropriate opening remarks by a prosecutor unfairly prejudiced the jury against his client.
Begin’s attorney, Verne Paradie Jr., said that the combination of testimony and remarks painted Begin as a potentially violent criminal and gave police an excuse to use excessive force.
According to briefs filed by the attorneys, on April 9, 2013, Lewiston police officer Matthew Vierling was serving a protection order against Begin, preventing him from entering a Bartlett Street residence. Begin emerged from the residence but upon being notified of the protection order sought to re-enter it through an attached garage, at which point Vierling attempted to stop him, running at him from behind and tackling him to the ground.
During the melee that ensued, Begin allegedly reached for a screwdriver and, when unable to reach it, sought to un-holster the officer’s sidearm, according to prosecutors.
Vierling, fearing for his life, tightened the chokehold, at which point Begin lost consciousness. After regaining consciousness, Vierling allegedly reached for the gun again, was stopped and held pinned to the ground until backup arrived.
Following a jury conviction, he was sentenced to four and a half years with all but 14 months suspended and two years of probation.
During testimony, Vierling said he attempted to stop Begin from re-entering the home because he feared a repeat of a 1999 incident on Webster Street in Lewiston in which Ken Emrick, who had been served with a protection order, went back into his residence, picked up a rifle and shot dead his estranged girlfriend, who had arrived with police to retrieve her belongings. Emrick then shot himself in the head.
The incident was picked up by national news outlets and touched off reform in the Police Department, according to reports from the time.
Paradie said the “horrific” incident was not relevant and evoked undue bias from the jury.
When combined with statements from Androscoggin County Assistant District Attorney Andrew Matulis during opening statements to the effect that the jury had a responsibility to hold Begin accountable rather than determine the case on its merits, it ignored his right to a fair trial, Paradie said.
Following the remarks, Paradie asked for a mistrial but was denied.
Justice Donald Alexander wondered why Paradie was bothered by the officer’s testimony, when he could have led a jury to believe Vierling overreacted because of his prior experiences.
Paradie thought it hurt him because Vierling suffered injuries while out doing his job.
“In my mind, that testimony would create an inference to the jury that every officer serving a protection order is justified in initiating physical contact if there’s anything slightly out of the ordinary,” Paradie said.
Alexander said Vierling could have been more general, rather than retelling the infamous shooting. “Evidence about another incident to make a defendant look like a bad person is not proper,” the justice said.
Matulis said the reference was necessary to explain the institutional knowledge that has shaped how the department handles domestic violence issues. He said the court gave the defense a chance to remedy the remarks and later instructed the jury not to make emotional decisions not based on the facts.
Justice Joseph Jabar wondered what the court should do when prosecutors insert their own views into a case.
“How do we get prosecutors to not inject themselves into trials if we don’t say that it’s an important enough error that it’s not harmless and we’re going to send this case back until the prosecutor gets it right?” Jabar said.
Matulis admitted his opening argument was inappropriate but said it didn’t outweigh the facts.
“Prosecutors make mistakes,” he said.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
