×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

Hearings for Slayback’s bid for new trial put on hold

By Dean Shalhoup - Senior Staff Writer | May 23, 2018

Staff file photo Christopher Slayback, the former Merrimack man seeking a new trial following his conviction on several sexual-assault charges, listens as his lawyer, Attorney Kara Simard, addresses the judge during a recent court hearing. The case has been continued for three months until Simard returns to work.

NASHUA – Hearings on former Merrimack resident Christopher Slayback’s motion for a new trial, filed in January after being convicted on multiple sexual-assault charges, has been put on hold for at least three months, according to court documents.

The reason for the summertime hiatus is the unavailability of Slayback’s lawyer, attorney Kara Simard, who, in an expedited motion filed this week, notified the court she is “unavailable to proceed” due to the start of a roughly three-month maternity leave.

Simard, who estimates she will return Sept. 1, signed on as Slayback’s attorney in his bid for a new trial, which Slayback argues he deserves because his former counsel, Nashua attorney Mark Osborne, failed to effectively represent him.

The prosecutor, First Assistant County Attorney Leslie Gill, promptly assented to the motion, which Judge Jacalyn Colburn then granted.

The motion came on the eve of this week’s scheduled hearing.

A Superior Court jury, on Oct. 30, 2014, found Slayback, 47, formerly of 2 Maple Ridge Road, Apt. 15 in Merrimack, guilty on all nine counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, on which he had gone to trial earlier that month.

Colburn, the judge, sentenced Slayback in January 2015 to two, 10-20 year prison terms, to be served consecutively.

The charges accuse Slayback of developing a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl who had come to live with Slayback and his family in 2013.

Slayback, in his motion, levels a host of accusations against Osborne, among them Osborne’s alleged failure to follow through on plea-agreement negotiations with prosecutors, not conveying “any plea offers” to Slayback, and instructing him to waive his pre-sentence investigation.

He claims Osborne also let plea-negotiation offers lapse without “affording Slayback any consultation or advice regarding the merits of any such offers as compared to his slim chances for success at trial … “ and failed to object when one or more witnesses introduced “evidence of uncharged conduct” during the trial, as well as during opening statements and closing arguments, according to the documents.

Osborne said Friday that while he discussed several potential defense strategies with Slayback, they concluded “the only, the best (strategy) was that it never happened,” referring to the “chargeable offenses” – those that occurred when the victim was under age 16.

He told Simard the strategy was based on the victim’s contention that “for many, many years, she had this torrid thing going on with Mr. Slayback. We wanted to show the jury that, number one, she made a slew of inconsistent statements and had a slew of inconsistent disclosures,” he said.

“Second, during all that time (of the relationship) she told no one – not a counselor, not a friend, not a relative, nobody.”

Further, he said, there was “absolute absence of any direct physical evidence … and absolute absence of any eyewitnesses to anything” suggesting Slayback and the girl were having a relationship.

“Fourteen to adulthood, that’s a hell of a timeline for nobody to see anything,” Osborne added, referring to the victim’s age range during the relationship.

Osborne told the court he also found himself up against a monumental challenge all along: Convincing Slayback that his steadfast position on potential plea agreements was unrealistic.

“He was optimistic he’d be found innocent, or that the judge would dismiss the charges once she heard the case,” Osborne said, adding that he explained to Slayback that the correct legal term is “not guilty.”

Asked by Gill if he explained to Slayback what his exposure (to punishment) would be if he was convicted at trial, Osborne said “yes, I did … many times.”

But Slayback budged little, if at all, according to Osborne’s testimony.

“Every conversation we had, (Slayback said) ‘I’m innocent. I need to be found innocent. I’m not going to plead guilty to something I didn’t do,'” Osborne said.

“That was our running conversation for over a year.”

Mostly, Osborne said, Slayback’s response to any suggestion that he could be found guilty at trial was, “it’s not going to happen.”

Osborne said Slayback told him the only plea deal he would agree to was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempted simple assault, receiving a suspended jail sentence, “and maybe counseling.”

At one point, Osborne said, Slayback wrote a note addressed to prosecutors: “I just want to make sure I’m clear. I will not accept a plea deal of any kind,” he wrote.

“There are three outcomes in my mind: Guilty (not going to happen); not guilty; or the charges are dropped.”

Slayback added, according to Osborne, “I truly look forward to going to court and beating this.”

Dean Shalhoup can be reached at 594-1256, dshalhoup@nashuatelegraph.com or @Telegraph_DeanS.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *