FARMINGTON – Attorneys representing the state and the man accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend with a bat made their closing arguments Monday morning, taking divergent views of whether James Sweeney was able to appreciate right from wrong when the incident occurred in the early morning hours of July 11, 2017.
The bench trial concluded after four-and-a-half days of testimony and argument from Assistant Attorney General Meg Elam and AAG Leane Zainea, representing the state, and attorneys Thomas Carey and Walter Hanstein, representing James “Ted” Sweeney, 58 of Jay. Justice William Stokes said that he intended to issue a verdict by Feb. 1.
Sweeney’s attorneys have not contested that their client struck Wendy Douglass, age 51, in the head with a softball bat on July 11, 2017. The forensic pathologist that performed the autopsy on Douglass, Dr. Clare Bryce, testified last week that blunt force head injuries resulted in Douglass’ death, after she was struck at least three times: once to the left forehead, once to the right forehead and once to the mouth.
Douglass’ body was discovered later that day when Jay Police Department officers arrived to conduct a well-being check, after Sweeney drove himself to the Androscoggin County Jail and communicated via note that he was “going to jail cause [he] hurt [his] girlfriend.” Sweeney communicated to the jail employee via pen and paper because he is deaf. The trial has been conducted with the assistance of American Sign Language interpreters.
Sweeney entered a plea of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity to the charge of murder in October 2018. Dr. Robert Pollard Jr., an expert in mental health that is fluent in ASL, testified for the defense on Thursday and Friday, saying that he believed that Sweeney had schizophrenia. The state’s expert, Dr. Robert Riley, said that he believed that Sweeney suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and an anxiety issue but that Sweeney was not schizophrenic.
Both doctors said that Sweeney told them that he had become convinced that Douglass was cheating on him, a theory that all witnesses that testified to the issue indicated was without merit. This jealousy reportedly manifested itself in Sweeney following Douglass – sometimes to a point where he is alleged to have borrowed vehicles and worn wigs and/or hats to escape detection. Douglass had broken up with Sweeney after a roughly 10-year relationship shortly before her death; she allowed Sweeney to stay in the house until he found a new place to live.
Sometime before 4 a.m. on July 11, 2017, Sweeney told the doctors that he saw a text message appear on Douglass’ phone with a single word: ‘gone.’ Pollard testified that Sweeney told him that he had paced with the softball bat in his hands for roughly an hour before he heard a sound in his head – described as either a dragon’s voice or a horn sound throughout the trial – which told him to proceed.
Sweeney told both doctors that he struck Douglass three times with the bat. In doing so, Pollard testified, Sweeney thought that he could “stall” any other relationship that Douglass might have, as well as get himself help. He wrote the note to the jail employee, Pollard said Sweeney told him, so people would go help Douglass because he had hurt her.
In her closing statement, Zainea said that Sweeney had set specific goals, weighed his options and taken steps designed to fulfill his goals. He had not called 9-1-1, using a TTY phone designed to allow a deaf person to make phone calls and had not requested medical assistance for Douglass when texting and emailing others that morning. The state was not arguing that Sweeney was 100 percent mentally healthy, Zainea said, citing Riley’s diagnosis, but that he could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions on the morning of July 11, 2017.
Hanstein said that Justice Stokes should judge the methods and qualifications of both doctors in determining what testimony should be given more weight. He said there had been no testimony or evidence toward previous domestic violence assaults in the 10-year relationship. The hallucination Sweeney had referenced to Pollard had “flipped a switch” that led to him striking Douglass with the bat, Hanstein said.
Stokes asked several questions regarding the word “appreciate” in the Maine statute governing the Insanity defense. The statute reads that: “A defendant is not criminally responsible by reason of insanity if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct.” Stokes also asked if a hallucination affirming a previously-considered action could qualify as a defense under Maine law.
The insanity defense is an affirmative defense, meaning Sweeney’s attorneys must prove that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he “lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct” when the crime was committed.
As charged by the state, prosecutors must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Sweeney “intentionally or knowingly” caused the death of Douglass in order to sustain a murder conviction.
Stokes concluded the trial by thanking both the state and Sweeney’s defense for their presentations. He said that he intended to issue a verdict by Feb. 1.
[Editor’s Note: Attorney Walter Hanstein and the author are related.]
This is so sad. It sounds like she was a nice lady. I’d hate to be the judge. What can you do? Everybody loses. I feel like crying sometimes.