Aroostook man convicted of murder seeks appeal, blames lawyers

HOULTON, Maine – August 22, 2024 – James Paul Peaslee, who is serving a 60-year sentence in the Maine State Prison for the murder of his stepfather, testified in an evidentiary hearing after his conviction that his previous attorneys did not adequately represent him. His new attorney is Michelle King of Portland. (Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli | Houlton Pioneer Times)

HOULTON, Maine – An Aroostook County man currently serving a 60-year sentence for murder in a state prison said during an evidentiary hearing following his conviction Thursday that his 2019 trial was riddled with attorney missteps, faulty evidence and judicial bias.

James Paul Peaslee, 44, testified for nearly two hours in Aroostook County Superior Court, detailing how his previous attorneys, Stephen Smith of Bangor and John Tebbetts of Presque Isle, had not adequately represented his interests.

They ignored his request to ask the presiding judge to disqualify him from his murder trial, failed to inform him of essential information related to his appeal, wrongly advised him not to testify on his own behalf and failed to check the criminal record of a state witness, he said.

Peaslee was convicted of murdering his stepfather, Paul Hilenski, 79, in 2018 on Boundary Line Road in Bridgewater.

Several things can happen at a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, including a retrial if the judge grants an appeal.

According to his new attorney, Michelle King of Portland, Peaslee plans to pursue an appeal against his conviction.

On Thursday, King had him read from a document he recently discovered in files returned to him by his former lawyer, Smith.

“It appears to be a conversation between my two attorneys on or about February 5, 2019,” Peaslee told the court, then read the conversation between Smith and Tebbetts.

“I think we just let it all out. I think there's no question that he's just crazier than an owl,” Smith said.

Smith's comment prompted Peaslee to question his ability to practice law, he said.

“I don't need someone to represent my freedoms and have that kind of attitude toward me for the rest of my life,” he said. “I really wondered if he ever had my best interests at heart.”

In court, Smith was also asked to read the statement and he admitted making it.

Continuing his testimony, Peaslee said that on the first day of his murder trial, the presiding judge, Harold Stewart II, said he was related to a key prosecution witness.

“I wondered how this was possible. It's a conflict of interest,” he said, explaining that he had tried to get his lawyers to ask the judge to recuse himself, but they had not done so.

Peaslee continued to urge his lawyers to take action, and eventually they asked the court for a recess.

He said he told them they would have to ask the judge for a recusal, but they said they would not do that.

“I had to sit there and know that under no circumstances would these lawyers do what I asked them to do,” he said.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Nelson asked Peaslee what impact he thought this had on the trial.

“I believe Judge Stewart was biased,” he said, citing several examples. “I believe if I had had an unbiased judge, my trial would have gone much better.”

Later in the hearing, Peaslee claimed that state witness Matthew Clark had lied to get a reduced sentence and that Clark had done so on four other occasions.

Clark, who was in prison with Peaslee, testified in court that Peaslee killed Hilenski over a dispute over his mother's property. Clark said Peaslee told him he got a .380-caliber pistol, went to a convenience store to create an alibi, changed clothes, then went to the Hilenskis' house, knocked on the door, and when Hilenski came to the door, he shot him.

During cross-examination, Assistant Attorney General Leann Robbin questioned Peaslee about Clark and evidence from the trial, including a videotape.

In a contentious exchange between the two, Robbin's questions included some that Peaslee had already answered before, and he was frustrated by the repetition. Robbin also seemed disturbed by some of Peaslee's comments and kept returning to questions related to the evidence at trial.

Nelson asked that the questioning be kept focused.

Attorneys Smith and Tebbetts testified about Peaslee's allegations, explaining why they did not ask the judge for recusal, why they advised him not to testify during the trial, why they did not file a sentencing brief, and why he was not included in the appeal.

Both lawyers said Peaslee asked them not to prepare a sentencing memo.

Smith, who served as lead counsel in Peaslee's case, told the court he could not recall Peaslee asking him to take a break to discuss the recusal, even though that was in the court record. And he said he could not recall Peaslee asking for a recusal.

Regarding the appeal of the verdict, Tebbetts said he had told Peaslee that he could appeal the verdict, but he was not sure how much it would accomplish.

Both Nelson and King asked Tebbetts for clarification.

“I can't remember my exact words, but I said it was bold and highly unlikely and, frankly, I thought the court could have imposed a life sentence,” he said.

He further said that he understood that his client did not want him to beg for a lesser sentence.

King and Robbin have 28 days after Thursday's hearing to file briefs.