A former New York police officer is challenging a court ruling that he is physically capable of being retried in a decades-old child sexual assault case.
Plans for his new trial are on hold while the Vermont Supreme Court decides whether to hear his appeal.
Leonard Forte, 80, is accused of sexually assaulting a preteen girl at his Landgrove vacation home in 1987. The following year, a Bennington County jury convicted him of three counts of sexual assault, punishable by up to 60 years in prison.
But the presiding judge, the late Theodore Mandeville, granted his request for a new trial in 1989, saying the female prosecutor had prejudiced the jury by being too emotional.
Ever since the state recharged him in 1997 — after failed attempts to get the guilty verdicts reinstated — Forte has been asserting that he is too sick to be retried and that his case should be thrown out. He now lives in LaBelle, Florida, a city just east of Fort Myers.
In June, following a multiday hearing over four months, the Bennington Superior criminal court determined he is physically competent to return to Vermont and stand trial.
Judge Cortland Corsones found that Forte has serious medical conditions, such as heart and kidney diseases, diabetes and anxiety. But, the judge said in his written decision, “medical evidence demonstrates that the defendant is not at substantial risk to his health or life, if he is required to travel to VT and to attend jury trial.”
The judge said evidence of Forte’s activities, such as travels around Florida and out of state, also show he can withstand trial. “The evidence demonstrates that the defendant exaggerates the limitations on his activities,” Corsones wrote. “The defendant is able to safely travel, when it is something he wants to do.”
Forte is appealing that ruling, putting on hold a trial tentatively scheduled for this spring. His attorneys argued for a reconsideration based on several factors, including that the court erred in its legal analysis and relied on “irrelevant evidence.”
Lead defense attorney Susan McManus said in a written motion that the court gave undue weight to testimony about Forte’s historical activities and medical records, rather than recent ones.
Should the court reconsider in Forte’s favor, McManus wrote, his felony charges would likely be dismissed. She said it’s imperative that the court grant an appeal; otherwise, it’s risking “significant harm” to Forte’s health, possibly his life.
Corsones rejected some of the grounds Forte’s attorneys cited. The judge found no dispute with the legal analysis the court used, saying in a Nov. 10 ruling: “The defendant disagrees with the weight that the court gave to certain evidence — not to the law applied by the court. It was well within the discretion of the court to weigh the contested evidence presented at the hearing.”
In line with the prosecution’s position, the judge also said a ruling in Forte’s favor won’t lead to dismissal of the charges, but an appeal would delay the jury trial.
Deputy State’s Attorney David Tartter, opposing the appeal, said that, should Forte be found physically incapable to stand trial, the prosecution would just wait for him to improve enough to be retried.
The Vermont Supreme Court is reviewing whether to take up Forte’s appeal. It’s unclear when the court will issue a decision. If it hears the appeal, this would be the fifth time that the state Supreme Court would be weighing in on the 34-year-old case, according to legal records.
Forte is free on bond while his case is being litigated. He is due back in Bennington court on Feb. 15 for a hearing on whether he can face criminal charges due to what his attorneys described as cognitive and memory issues.
Forte also faces more recent charges of obstruction of justice, with Vermont authorities alleging he faked a doctor’s note and lied about a hospice stay to evade prosecution in the child sexual assault case.
Last month, Florida charged him with two felonies linked to the 1987 case. He is accused of illegally using another person’s ID to submit a fake doctor’s letter to the Vermont courts, as well as phoning in to a Vermont hearing to assert that the doctor’s letter was authentic.
