Opinion ID: 2361208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nancy Dyment's Testimony at the Jackson Trial

Text: [¶ 5] Before the start of Jackson's trial, the court granted his motion to sequester the witnesses. Prior to Nancy Dyment's testimony, Jackson became concerned about conversations Dyment had outside the courtroom with another witness, Wendy Blouin, who had testified earlier the same day at Moore's trial. When questioned in the absence of the jury, Dyment said the conversation lasted about five minutes and did not involve any discussion of the substance of Blouin's earlier testimony. The court denied Jackson's motion to exclude Dyment's testimony on the ground that she violated the sequestration order. [¶ 6] Jackson contends the court erred by denying his motion to exclude Dyment's testimony. We disagree. The limited consequence of a sequestration order, pursuant to M.R.Evid. 615, is that witnesses are excluded from the courtroom until they have finished testifying. State v. Bennett, 416 A.2d 720, 726-27 (Me.1980). The primary function of sequestration is to prevent one witness from hearing the testimony of another so as to be able to conform his own testimony to that given by the other, especially that given in response to cross-examination. State v. Cloutier, 302 A.2d 84, 90 (Me.1973). A sequestration order is not a general prohibition against witnesses talking about the case. Bennett, 416 A.2d at 727. In the absence of any request for more stringent restrictions to be imposed by the court, the sequestration order in the instant case did no more than exclude witnesses from the courtroom until they were finished testifying. Thus the conversation that Dyment described between herself and Blouin was not a violation of the order.