Maine’s highest court heard arguments Thursday about whether errors in the trial of a Piscataquis County woman led to a theft conviction.
A jury convicted Terri Moulton of one felony count each of forgery and theft in July 2024 after she embezzled more than $730,000, from Dewitt Machine & Fabrication Company of Medford. Piscataquis County District Attorney R. Christopher Almy called it the largest embezzlement case in the county.
Defense attorney Neil Prendergast and Assistant Attorney General Mark Rucci presented their cases during oral arguments before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday.
The state’s highest court could overturn Moulton’s conviction, if it determines she was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial errors from Almy and errors from the judge. Moulton’s conviction could be upheld if the state’s highest justices determine no harmful errors were made.
A statement from Almy to the jury during the trial is at the heart of the issues raised by Moulton’s defense. The statement is recorded in a written transcript of the trial.
“Now, you might — this is something might, you might want to be thinking about, ‘Well, Mr. Almy, why are we — the defendant in this case confessed, why are we having a trial?’” Almy said at the trial. “We need to understand that we need to respect the process. Everybody is entitled to have a trial … we are having a trial, the defendant is entitled to a trial, we are not disparaging that, despite the evidence that shows on different occasions that she admitted what happened, and we will talk about that.”
The statement reads as if Almy is asking “Why are we having a trial?” Supreme Court Justice Julia Lipez said during the arguments. Any lawyer could read the transcript with different inflections and make the statement sound different, Justice Wayne Douglas said.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial.
Moulton couldn’t have had a fair trial if the prosecutor essentially said there’s no need, since she confessed, Prendergast said. Moulton did not take the stand during the trial but there was a video played of her confessing to the theft.
Rucci said he wasn’t willing to agree that’s how the statement reads, saying that the Judge Michael Roberts, who presided over the trial, said it didn’t rise to the level of mistrial.
Roberts had worked as the deputy district attorney for Almy about a decade ago. Moulton’s lawyer asked Roberts to recuse himself, but he denied the motion.
That alone should result in a mistrial, Prendergast said. The deputy district attorney is second in command in the office and makes decisions.
There was no reason for Roberts to recuse himself, Rucci said. If the supreme court finds error in the case, that doesn’t mean it was because Roberts had bias because of his previous working relationship with Almy.
Another issue raised was if Almy’s statements about Moulton violating trust and betraying the company were errors that prejudiced the jury. There’s a line between arguing the facts and attacking character, multiple justices pointed out.
The Maine supreme court will issue a written opinion in the coming months.
