The attorneys in the case of former Great Salt Bay Community School fifth grade teacher Peter Simonds made their closing arguments in a motion hearing Dec. 3.
Simonds faces 22 charges of Unlawful Sexual Contact and Unlawful Sexual Touching.
Through the motions, the defense seeks to suppress a 49-minute audio recording of Simonds’ March 18 interview with Damariscotta Police Chief Steve Drake, Simonds’ written statement, a photocopy of a yearbook page in which Simonds circled photographs of three alleged victims, and comments Simonds made to his wife, Diane Simonds, a kindergarten teacher at Great Salt Bay, in the presence of law enforcement officials. (See The Lincoln County News of Nov. 25, front page.)
The defense motion also seeks to sever, or seek separate trials for each of Simonds’ seven alleged victims.
In oral argument before Justice Andrew Horton, Assistant District Attorney Andrew Wright, the prosecutor, argued his point that Simonds was free to leave at any time throughout the interview or the time in which he wrote the statement.
“Every single time the Chief of Police stated ‘I’m going to let you go,’ Mr. Simonds continued the conversation,” Wright said.
Defense attorney Rick Morse’s argument focuses on a brief exchange in the interview in which Simonds asks if he can get a drink of water and Drake instead sends Detective Richard Alexander to bring Simonds the water.
“Saying ‘can I go get water?’ is absolutely not the same thing as saying ‘can I leave?'” Wright argued.
Wright dismissed Morse’s argument that Simonds confessed against his will because he was nervous or frightened. “Every bank robber who robs a bank is scared and nervous but that doesn’t mean they’re robbing the bank involuntarily,” Wright said.
According to Wright, Simonds expanded on his initial, verbal confession in the written statement, nullifying any possibility that he was simply following instructions.
“There’s a difference between what was stated and what was written – it’s not simply a regurgitation,” Wright said.
Wright questioned the veracity of Simonds’ testimony and the testimony of his wife, Diane Simonds. “Mrs. Simonds is a completely untrustworthy witness,” Wright said, “whether she’s lying to the court or whether her loyalty so discolors her memory… she admitted to the fact that she colored her words.”
“[Diane Simonds] contradicted herself time and time again,” Wright said. “Neither Mr. Simonds nor Mrs. Simonds can be called impartial witnesses.”
Morse, in his closing argument, presented a dramatically different retelling of the events of March 18 – the day Simonds confessed and, later, resigned from his position as a fourth grade teacher.
“It really was an involuntary interview from the moment it started,” Morse said, referring to the Drake-Simonds interview. Morse said Alexander, “in essence,” was “patrolling the room” and “standing guard” over Simonds during the interview and while Simonds wrote his statement.
Morse called the setting of the interview – the office of Great Salt Bay Principal Jeff Boston – “eerily similar” to a police interrogation room.
Morse roundly criticized Drake’s conduct in the interview. “To say this is aggressive is an understatement,” Morse said. “This is an incredibly forceful interrogation. This is the figurative grabbing of the lapels – saying, ‘this is what you’re going to do and you’re going to do it now.’ It’s such an extreme case.”
Although Drake told Simonds he was free to leave at least three times during the interview, Morse said his client was unaware of his rights. Morse denied that Simonds expanded on his words in the interview in his written statement. “I think it’s exactly what was described in the interview – to a “T”,” he said.
Wright replied to Morse’s assertions in a brief rebuttal. Wright described Morse’s use of the phrase “grabbing of the lapels” as inaccurate. “This isn’t a 1950s pulp [fiction] movie,” he said.
Wright also took issue with Morse’s description of Boston’s office as “eerily similar” to a police interrogation room. Multiple witnesses described the room as a large, comfortable and well-furnished space befitting the leader of an academic institution. “It’s actually a really large room,” Wright said.
Wright again questioned Morse’s argument that Simonds did not understand his rights. Simonds, in his Nov. 18 testimony, said he holds a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Massachusetts. His specialty, he said, was colonial history, yet on cross-examination, Simonds said he was unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.
The document, which consists of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution and outlines the right to an attorney and to the “due process of law,” is taught in introductory civics and American history classes.
“I find it very difficult to believe a well-educated teacher can be forced this easily into doing something involuntarily,” Wright said.
“This was an aggressive interview of a capable human being who then told the officer what happened,” Wright said. “The state’s view is that all [the evidence] should be admissible.”
Justice Horton agreed to “take the matter under advisement.”
“The court’s obligation is to assure a fair trial,” Horton said. “This is not a straightforward question.”
Horton did not provide a time frame for a ruling.
In a related matter, Simonds has made a “claim for reinstatement” under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement with AOS 93. Simonds declined comment.
Morse did not return messages left at his office. AOS 93 Supt. Robert Bouchard declined comment. Kami Peaslee, the leader of the teachers’ union at Great Salt Bay, did not return messages left at her office and home.
