The Vermont Supreme Court has ordered a new trial on a charge that former state senator Norm McAllister engaged in a prostitution scheme with a woman living on his farm.
The court said Judge Martin Maley made two mistakes in McAllister’s trial: He allowed jurors to consider separate sex-for-rent allegations for which McAllister was never convicted, and he improperly told the jury to ignore statements by McAllister’s accuser.
McAllister was convicted in July 2017 of one misdemeanor count of procuring a person for the purpose of prostitution. He was acquitted of a second count, and also of a felony sexual assault charge. It was the second trial involving allegations that led to McAllister’s 2015 arrest at the Statehouse. He was accused of sex-related crimes against multiple women.
The state dropped its charges in the first trial after the key witness allegedly lied under oath.
McAllister escaped a felony sexual assault conviction in his second trial, and now the prostitution conviction has been thrown out pending a new trial.
The written decision says that Maley told attorneys before the trial that separate sex crime allegations against McAllister should not be introduced because jurors were only evaluating the specific allegations related to one accuser.
During the trial, the justices wrote, Maley made the mistake of allowing prosecutors to admit evidence involving a different woman. “We conclude the admission of the alleged prior bad act evidence was an abuse of discretion,” the decision says.
Separately, Maley told jurors to ignore testimony from McAllister’s accuser in which she said, “I did it with a guy before for money.”
McAllister’s attorney, Bob Katims, said that mistake was central to his client’s conviction.
“[The jury] basically said they didn’t have a decision and then all of a sudden they had a question and once the question got answered they had a verdict,” Katims said. He said that if Franklin County prosecutors decide to move forward with a new trial, he’ll fight it.
“We’d be filing a motion to dismiss the charge. There’s a mechanism to file a motion to — it’s not a legal term, but ‘enough is enough,’” Katims said.
“He’s now been brought to trial twice. It was dismissed in one place; he was acquitted of two out of three charges the second time,” Katims said. “He certainly has suffered greatly from this in that he lost his seat in the legislature… He’s been on probation for the last year.”
A woman who answered the phone at the Franklin County state’s attorney’s office on Friday afternoon said nobody was available to comment.
Read the full decision here:
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
So, even in Vermont rape is perfectly ok, encouraged even if youre a lawmaker or wealthy and the victim is poor. This is another disgusting opinion from our disgusting Supreme Court. The state shouldnt bother retrying old Norm, the Vermont Supreme Court will never, ever let a conviction stand. All Vermonters should be ashamed.
I’m sure those that voted to keep Norm in office are feeling fully vindicated. Just as a reminder the following voted to voted to keep him office:
Brian Collamore R Rutland bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us
Peg Flory R Rutland pflory@leg.state.vt.us
Dick Mazza D Grand Isle
Dick McCormack D Windsor rmccormack@leg.state.vt.us
Mark MacDonald D Orange mmacdonald@leg.state.vt.us
Kevin Mullin R Rutland
Alice Nitka D Windsor anitka@leg.state.vt.us
Robert Starr D Essex-Orleans rstarr@leg.state.vt.us
Jeanette White D Windham jwhite@leg.state.vt.us
#BlindEye much?
“This is another disgusting opinion from our disgusting Supreme Court.”
What’s disgusting is your shocking attitude toward the rule of law. Hey, you know he’s guilty of whatever he’s accused of, so why bother giving him a trial based on admissible evidence? Actually, why bother giving him a trial at all?
You know who thinks exactly like you do? Donald Trump. Congratulations.
With your attitude toward the rule of law, you should hope YOU never get charged with a crime.
Lock him up!
They tried to railroad him. The woman who lied under oath should be charged and go to prison.
He is lucky he just got convicted of a misdemeanor charge and not the felony charges. Must have paid off someone to do that. And he’s still whining over the misdemeanor charge he was convicted of? Plus the last trial ended up as a mistrial? Goes to show you that money talks and bullshit walks
“Must have paid off someone to do that. . . Goes to show you that money talks and bullshit walks”
You have ZERO evidence that anyone in our criminal justice system accepted money to reduce the charges against McAllister. Zero. It didn’t happen. But you’ve never let the absence of any evidence, let alone common sense, get in the way of your accusations of corruption. Talk about bullshit walking . . .