[S]T. ALBANS – Prosecutors and defense attorneys quizzed potential jurors Tuesday on their views of prostitution and pimps in preparation for the trial of Norm McAllister, a 67-year-old former state senator from Franklin County.
McAllister is facing a misdemeanor charge for allegedly prostituting a tenant living and working on his Highgate farm.
More than 50 potential jurors were called Tuesday to the courthouse in St. Albans, with 12 of them ultimately selected to hear the case along with two alternates. The process getting to that point proceeded throughout the day at a painstakingly slow pace.
“We have a jury,” Judge Michael Kupersmith said a little bit before 4:30 p.m., telling those who made the cut to come back Thursday when the trial is set to begin.
“Relax tomorrow,” the judge told the jurors selected to serve on the panel hearing McAllister’s case. “Come in fresh and strong on Thursday.”
The case against the one-time Republican lawmaker — arrested in 2015 outside the Vermont Statehouse when he was still a sitting senator — has garnered intense coverage in Franklin County as well as across the state.
The seating of the jury as the court closed Tuesday followed hours of questions to the pool ranging from whether they believed prostitution should be legal to their understanding of reasonable doubt.
The judge started the proceedings by telling the potential jurors that McAllister, who was seated at the defense table alongside his two attorneys, is presumed innocent, and has requested a jury trial.
Franklin County Deputy State’s Attorney John Lavoie, one of the prosecutors in the case, and Robert Katims, a defense attorney for McAllister, read through a list of witnesses that may be called to testify and asked the potential jurors if they knew any.
Few hands went up, with only one person saying he met McAllister. That man said he once played in card game with the former state senator.
Lavoie also asked each potential juror as kids what they wanted to be when they grew up.
One woman said a veterinarian, and another wanted to be a figure skater. A man replied that he wanted to grow up to become Superman, while another said he thought he’d become a woodworker. Several men said they dreamed of becoming professional athletes.
“I want to be the manager of the New York Mets,” another responded.
Lavoie, reciting back the occupations people had selected, remarked that a not a single one of them wanted to grew up to become a prostitute.
“Why do you think that would be?” the prosecutor asked the potential jurors.
“Morals,” a man responded.
Lavoie then told the jury pool the case involved an allegation of a woman being set up to act as a prostitute for another man.
“That’s what this case is about,” the prosecutor said.
Prosecutors alleged that as a sitting senator McAllister prostituted a woman living and working on his Franklin County farm to a friend. The prosecutors accuse McAllister of using that money, $70, to pay a utility bill for the trailer on his property where the woman was living.
Lavoie on Tuesday questioned the potential jurors if they could still be fair and impartial when that woman testified.
“I’m asking you if you if you are going to hold it against her because she is a prostitute,” the prosecutor said the jury pool.
No one replied that they would.
He also asked the potential jurors if any believed prostitution should be legal.
Several hands went up from people indicating they did, including one man who told Lavoie, “They should tax it, too.”
Lavoie then questioned jurors if they would hold it against prosecutors that the woman who was allegedly the prostitute was not being charged.
“In this case the prostitute is not on trial,” Lavoie said. “It’s the alleged pimp that’s on trial.”
The prosecutor added that it’s illegal in Vermont to “procure” another person for prostitution.
“We’re not prosecuting the John, we’re prosecuting the pimp,” he told the jury.
No juror said they would hold it against the state for not charging the woman.
Katims asked the jury pool if they would hold the state to its burden of proving the case against McAllister beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Even if you feel somebody is guilty, that’s not enough,” the defense attorney said. “That’s a not guilty, not proven verdict.”
Katims added that despite comments from the prosecutor regarding claims of prostitution and pimps, his client has maintained his innocence.
“Mr. McAllister said he’s not guilty. That it didn’t happen,” the defense attorney said.
To help screen the jurors before the selection process, they were each given a nine-page questionnaire to fill out.
Those questions included how closely they followed the case in the media.
The trial set to kickoff Thursday follows a Vermont Supreme Court decision in November that overturned McAllister’s conviction on the prohibited acts charge.
The high court, in its ruling, wrote, “the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted previously excluded prior-bad acts as evidence and when it retroactively instructed the jury to disregard admitted testimony during deliberation.”
That decision set the case back to the state court in St. Albans for a retrial. McAllister, through his attorney, tried to have the charge dismissed “in the interest of justice” ahead of a new trial.
However, prosecutors objected and Judge Kupersmith agreed to allow the case to proceed.
In denying the motion to dismiss the case, the judge wrote about the importance of public confidence in the judicial system.
“(McAllister) was a member of the Vermont Senate,” the judge wrote. “The Court must infer that he had a measure of political experience and power by reason of his attaining that office.”
Kupersmith added, “It would significantly erode public confidence in the judicial system if the public could infer that the Court dismissed the charge as an act of political favor.”
McAllister had been charged with two felony counts of sexual assault, alleging he sexually assaulted two women who worked for him, including an intern at the Statehouse and the tenant farmhand.
He had also been charged with three counts of prohibited acts relating to prostitution.
The only one leading to a conviction was the single prohibited acts count that the Vermont Supreme Court later overturned leading to the new trial.
At one point Tuesday, the potential jurors were asked if serving on a trial that could span two days this week would represent a hardship for them.
Only one said it would, telling that judge that it would mean missing two days of work which she could not financially afford to do.
Judge Kupersmith said that the reimbursement for jury duty is $30 a day.
“That doesn’t cover it?” he asked the woman.
“No,” she replied.
“Talk to your representative about that,” the judge responded.
“Good luck,” another potential juror shouted back.
That woman was later eliminated from the jury pool.
