Opinion ID: 2679982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Motion for a New Trial

Text: [¶17] On January 10, 2011, Twardus filed his first motion for a new trial. Evidentiary hearings on that motion were conducted on April 14 and June 22, 2011. Charity Camire, an employee of Maine Pretrial Services, testified that John Durfee had told her, while the victim was still missing, that one of the victim’s ex-boyfriends had parents with land in New Hampshire, and that he “bet that that’s where they would find her.” When asked whether Durfee had said that the land was in upstate New Hampshire, Camire testified that she believed Durfee said either northern or upstate New Hampshire. Camire further testified that she called the state police the same day, and spoke to Detective Michael Zabarsky, the lead investigator in the victim’s case, or possibly another detective of the state police.7 When she related what Durfee had said, the detective sounded uninterested, and told her that he was “well aware” of or “very familiar” with Durfee. Zabarsky testified that he had no memory or record of speaking with Camire. No information regarding Durfee’s alleged statements was relayed to the prosecutor or disclosed to the defense. [¶18] Twardus also called Elaine Plourde, a York County corrections officer, who testified that while Durfee was in jail in August 2007, with the victim 7 Initially, Camire could not recall the name of the detective she spoke to, but she testified that he had identified himself as the lead investigator in the victim’s case. She later testified that she had located notes that appeared to indicate that she had spoken to Zabarsky, and recalled speaking with someone who identified himself as Zabarsky. 11 still missing, Durfee made a series of statements, including that he “knew where the burial ground was.” According to Plourde, Durfee did not specify a location or refer to the victim, specifically. She also testified that he appeared to be under the influence of drugs, was “ranting and raving” and “going off on a tangent,” and said that there were “aliens flying in his cell.” Plourde did not report the incident to the police, because Durfee “was clearly not in the right state of mind.” Durfee denied making the burial ground comment. Another witness, Geneva Hersom, testified that she overheard Plourde say in October 2010 that Durfee had whispered to her that he knew where the victim’s body was. Plourde denied making such a statement. [¶19] Twardus also called Nancy Durfee. On October 13, 2010, Nancy Durfee was found unconscious on a roadside in Eliot. She was transported to the hospital, and laboratory tests indicated the presence of PCP in her system. At trial, Nancy Durfee had testified that her husband used PCP, but that she did not like to be around it. At the motion hearing, she maintained that the test results must have been due to secondhand smoke. [¶20] Nancy Durfee initially told authorities that she had been with her husband on October 13, and that he had been driving. She also told medical personnel that she had been having an argument with her husband. At the hearing, however, both she and her husband maintained that he was not driving the car. 12 Rather, she testified that she had been approached by a homeless man for a ride to Alfred, and decided to let the man drive her car. Once they started to drive back to Alfred, however, she became uncomfortable and asked that the man pull over and let her out to use a restroom. She asked the man to take the car back to Alfred, and was going to call her daughter for a ride, but she left her purse and cell phone in the vehicle. Nancy Durfee testified that she did not remember what happened after she exited the car, due to a concussion, but that she must have fallen. [¶21] Later, in a separate incident on March 10, 2011, the Durfees were both arrested on drug charges when PCP was found in their car. Ultimately, the state elected not to prosecute Nancy Durfee. [¶22] On July 18, 2011, the court denied Twardus’s motion. The court concluded that it was unlikely that much of the newly discovered evidence about the Durfees, if presented to the jury at trial, would have resulted in a different verdict because his credibility as a trial witness had already been substantially undermined and because her role as a witness was not a critical part of the State’s case. Camire’s testimony, however, presented a “closer question” because it had to be considered “in light of the less stringent standard applied” when there has been a Brady violation. Even viewing Camire’s testimony under the Brady standard, however, the court determined that there was no reasonable probability that this 13 undisclosed evidence would have resulted in a different verdict, and that it did not undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict.