After a two-day hearing to review new evidence in the case against convicted murderer Dennis Dechaine, attorney John Nale said he felt good about the proceedings for his client on Friday.
"I think it went well, but nevertheless, we know the position that we're in, we're in a deep hole," Nale said.
Dechaine was convicted of the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in 1988 and is asking for a new trial based on new DNA testing of several items recovered from the crime scene in Bowdoin.
The six items were tested by the California-based Serological Research Institute in 2022. They included her bra and T-shirt, a scarf used to strangle her, a bandana and sticks used in her sexual assault.
On four of the items tested, Dechaine has been excluded from having contributed DNA. On two, Nale said, he could be included as a source.
But even with the advanced technology, the tests were only able to find incomplete DNA profiles, meaning it’s not possible to match the test results to an individual suspect. Instead, a person can only be considered as a possible source of DNA on the object.
The experts called to testify disagreed on the significance of the results.
Nale focused on the DNA from the scarf, and past DNA tests on Cherry's fingernail clippings, which he said show the presence of another man's DNA.
Nale said that Cherry was conscious and fighting back at the time she was attacked.
And that would allow Cherry, even though her hands were tied, to scratch and claw at the killer in front of her, Nale said, which is why there was blood under her fingernails.
Dechaine was excluded from the DNA profile from the nails.
Nale said that the nail DNA is similar to the DNA found on the scarf. But Assistant Attorney General Donald Macomber later pointed out that the scarf DNA has multiple sources and he said incomplete profiles cannot provide an exact match.
Nale argued that while the DNA profile is incomplete, "it does tell us something."
Macomber countered this version of events on several different points, making the overall argument that there is no way to know these details for certain.
"What you have just heard is John Nale's spin on the evidence," Macomber said.
He pointed out that in 1988, DNA testing was still new technology and modern-day practices that prevent contamination were not in place.
Additionally, Macomber said that all of the DNA samples have degraded over time.
"We’re talking about low-quality, degraded DNA evidence," he said.
Dechaine’s legal team maintains that the new DNA evidence suggests another man is responsible for the murder. They also say it meets the threshold for Dechaine to get a new trial because it would likely result in a different verdict. But state prosecutors disagree. They say there is other evidence that led to Dechaine's conviction.
Dechaine has always maintained his innocence.
In brief remarks after the hearing, Macomber would only say that he sympathized with Cherry's family.
"I just think it is a nightmare that Sarah’s family has to go through this every time," he said.
Cherry's younger sister Hilary Hall said she didn't think the arguments were enough to sway the judge to grant a new trial. Hall was eight years old when Cherry died and has attended many of the court proceedings since her death.
"This has been an interesting couple of days for sure — learned a lot of things that I didn't need to know," Hall said. "But I’m here to be here for my sister, here for my family and willing to say that I want my family to be remembered, I want her to be remembered. And I hope this is the end. I really do, cause we don't want to keep doing this."
It will be several weeks before Justice Bruce Mallonee makes a decision in the case.
Dechaine, now 66, is serving a life sentence for the crime.
