TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Man found not guilty of sex assault charge



Toolbox

By Thatcher Moats Times Argus Staff - Published: October 29, 2009

BARRE – A man accused of raping a woman in Plainfield in 2007 walked away from a Barre courtroom a free man on Wednesday after a jury declared he was not guilty of sexual assault.

The defendant, 50-year-old Dale Podolece, said he was glad the case — which stems from Halloween night two years ago — is finally closed.

"I'm glad it's over, for them as well as us," Podolece said, referring to the accuser, Heather Chouinard, and her family, who Podolece had been close friends with for years before the night in question.

The jury deliberated for one-and-a-half hours and announced the verdict at 2:15 p.m.

Chouinard and her family members appeared upset with the verdict and did not want to comment as they left the courtroom. But Chouinard, who said her name could be used in this story, later made a statement by telephone and thanked the state's attorney's office and the Sexual Assault Crisis Team for their hard work and support.

"I just want to kind of say how I appreciate the amount of work the (prosecutor) and the Sexual Assault Crisis Team put into it and helped support me," she said.

But the conclusion of the case hasn't brought closure for her, said Chouinard.

"It'll never be over," she said. "I'm going to struggle with knowing that some people don't believe me, and I'm going to have to go through the process of accepting what happened to me."

Chouinard, 35, said she doesn't blame the jury, even though she thinks their decision was wrong.

"I respect the choice the jurors made even though I don't necessarily see that it's accurate," she said. "But they did do the job."

Podolece, a retired military man who once worked with Chouinard's father, is a Mississippi resident who came to Vermont in 2007 to help Chouinard's parents move to Plainfield, where she was living.

Podolece admitted to having sex with Chouinard at her Plainfield apartment, but said it was consensual.

Chouinard took the witness stand on Tuesday, which was the first day of the two-day trial, and yesterday Podolece took the stand in his own defense.

His testimony clashed with testimony from Chouinard, her mother and other witnesses regarding where conversations took place the night of the incident, what was said the next day and about the sexual encounter.

Chouinard said she became sick after drinking less than three vodka drinks, became incapacitated and felt like she was having an "out-of-body" experience. Then Podolece took advantage of her and she was incapable of saying "no" to him, she testified.

But Podolece claimed she exposed herself and said: "you want some of this" don't you? And then they went to the bedroom and had sex, he said.

Podolece testified that the next day, Chouinard's mother told him not to worry about any accusations, because Chouinard had made similar accusations before.

"She said, 'Don't worry about this. Heather has done this before two or three times,'" Podolece said.

Leona Chouinard denied she ever disbelieved her daughter and said she didn't recall telling Podolece that her daughter had previously made false claims.

Without making direct accusations in the courtroom, both sides in the case have danced around the question of how Chouinard became suddenly sick that night after just over two drinks.

The prosecution has implied that Podolece may have drugged Chouinard's drink, pointing out that Podolece was alone with Chouinard's drink at one point. Chouinard said that after Podolece had been alone in the room with her drink, she started drinking it again and suddenly started feeling dizzy and light-headed and passed out.

Podolece denied he was ever alone with the drink.

Podolece, on the other hand, said he saw crushed up pills on a countertop in Chouinard's apartment bathroom, along with eight or 10 pill bottles that were not prescribed to her.

In an interesting twist, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney Megan Campbell recalled Leona Chouinard to the stand on Wednesday, and she testified there was no countertop in the bathroom where Podolece claims he saw the crushed pills and pill bottles.

"There was no room" for pills or bottles, said Leona Chouinard.

In her closing argument, Podolece's attorney, Maggie Vincent, questioned why the prosecution didn't have a photo of the bathroom if the counter was such important evidence and called testimony about the counter in the bathroom the "biggest red herring" in the case.

Instead of a photo, "we get to hear an angry mother's statement about the bathroom counter," said Vincent.

The pills in the bathroom have another role in the defense's case other than hinting that Chouinard may have used the drugs that night. Podolece has said it was after he found the drugs and Chouinard begged him not to tell her parents about the drugs that she propositioned him with sex.

Another theory the defense put before the jury in the closing argument was that Chouinard essentially made up the story in case Podolece told her parents the two had sex.

"If I'm a victim, I get attention and I get support," Vincent said, while a co-conspirator who sleeps with her parents' friend would be "ostracized."

Washington County State's Attorney Tom Kelly characterized the case against Podolece as a tough one to prove.

"It's a he-said she-said," according to Kelly, who also said he did not regret that his office pressed the charge.

Kelly pointed out that it's tough to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the jury apparently couldn't reach that point based on the facts put before them.

Podolece said he harbors no ill will towards the accuser or her family, even though he has claimed all along he was wrongly accused.

"I don't wish no harm on them," said Podolece, who has no criminal record.

Podolece does feel bad about cheating on his wife, who testified during the trial and stood beside him when it was over.

"I'll spend the rest of my life trying to make this right with her and with God," he said.








READER COMMENTS


I hope you're right Jim. Sometimes people have a public trial, get found innocent and all's well. Many times however there are consequences even for truly innocent people. Huge legal bills. Job loss. Some companies won't hire people with an arrest record even if there is no conviction. The emotional trauma of having to defend yourself when you have done nothing against the law. I think some countries restrict all publicity of trials unless there is a guilty verdict.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 9:22 pm EST

report this comment



I guess I am confused then, OM. This appears to be the justice system at work. A person is accused of a crime, he gets his day in court, he is found innocent. Was he guilty or not-only he and the accuser know for sure, but in the eyes of the court he was innocent and thus set free. As far as this ruining his name, ask me in one week what this guys name was and I wouldn't have a clue. So, why the big fuss?
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 8:19 pm EST

report this comment



A very sensible comment Ivan. The justice system has a presumption of innocence for any defendant. But, they published this guys name and protected his accuser.

Melissa, the drugs I'm talking about are not the ones for recreational drug use. The accuse claims she had a "date rape" drug used on her. A blood test can't prove how it gets in one's system but it can prove if it EXISTS.

I don't claim to know what happened or did not. My point is that the prosecutor has no idea that a rape happened except that one person alleged it did. Yes, None None I thing the prosecutor was way out of bounds by bringing a case with very little evidence. He wanted to be politically correct and get tough.

Could this guy have committed a sex assault on the night in question? It's possible. Could this woman be lying and have made up the story? That is possible too. Unless the TA is leaving out volumes of evidence I think this is more likely a Kobie Bryant case. Or, a Duke Lacross case. Or,,, a Norwich University case. Choose one. This case should have never gone to trial. How much did this guy have to spend on a lawyer just to clear his name? Now that he is not guilty, who pays his legal expenses? Hopefully the state will reimburse him for lost time and legal fees.

And Melissa women shouldn't get a free pass to accuse someone of rape. More often than not prosecutors just assume the guy is guilty and ram their way to a trial. What happened to the woman in the Duke Lacross case who falsely accused several college kids of rape? Nothing. And I thought OJ was guilty and they had more than enough evidence.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 4:28 pm EST

report this comment



I think the name of the accused in these cases should be protected like the alleged victum and not released until such time as he is convicted. Once a man has been charged for a sex crime or child abuse crime he is guilty in the minds of most people.
-- Posted by Ivan Vaughn on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 2:43 pm EST

report this comment



From your last paragraph, that's exactly why you feel that way.. because some one else actually did lie, now other women in your view are always going to be under the microscope because of some wrong twisted chicks that have lied. By that very view you have, is what causes many women to NEVER report it.. who knows, maybe this guy has raped before, but the women were afraid they would be made out to be a liar like you are right now...
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 1:35 pm EST

report this comment



I never said the guy is guilty Oldeman, I was stating just because they had reasonable doubt they couldn't convict, that doesn't make him innocent, but you are certain she is a liar though. How is that from this article? Were you on the jury, did you get to see all the evidence and hear all the testimony given? Just because someone is found not guilty, does NOT make the accuser a liar.

As far as your point about the drugs go, the defendant tried to cover his ass, just in case they had that evidence by saying she had crushed pills in the bathroom and many prescriptions not hers... sounds like something was involved as far as drugs go there huh? If he had no worry about drugs, why did he bring that up, why was he so vehement that she was doing drugs, and if she was, and he knew she was high, why did he ***** her, taking advantage of a situation maybe? That may not be a case of rape, but it sure in hell is a lack of morals.

If you want to look at angles look at all of them he could be a liar.. she could be a liar, but you seem to have her convicted of wrong doing, just because of a not guilty verdict, that's twisted!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 1:31 pm EST

report this comment



Olde Man, not exactly sure what your problem with the word "anytime" is, but you seem to have a lack of understanding of the legal system.
Did you attend the trial to make your statement that there was no evidence of guilt presented or are you basing it on the article in the TA? The jury did not necessarily find him not guilty because NO evidence of guilt was presented. All that the defense had to do was present evidence that raised a REASONABLE DOUBT about his guilt. If there was reasonable doubt, it was the jury's duty to find him not guilty.
Also, just to be clear, the case was between the defendant and the state, not the defendant and the alleged victim. The state chose to bring the case against the defendant; the alleged victim did not make the decision. The state clearly thought there was enough information to bring the case against the defendant. Maybe your complaint should be against the prosecutor for malicious prosecution?
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 11:04 am EST

report this comment



Typical Tom Kelly. Im so glad the taxpayers are paying for all these trials that the state loses. Hunting season is upon us-I wonder how many "Interfering with a hunter" trials we'll have this year
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 8:34 am EST

report this comment



Typical Tom Kelly. Im so glad the taxpayers are paying for all these trials that the state loses. Hunting season is upon us-I wonder how many "Interfering with a hunter" trials we'll have this year
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 8:34 am EST

report this comment



Your logic is 75% there None None, just like your reading comprehension. "..,anytime.." no, not anytime, but this time. "anytime" is a word you used.

I don't see any evidence of guilt presented in this case. Neither did the jury. Where's her blood test for mind altering drugs? There apparently were no drugs in her system that would correlate with what she described. Drug testing has come a long way. If she was drugged the prosecutor would have played it as a trump card.

The facts are that there appears to be no evidence against a man that is likely the real victim.

This case is a lot closer to Duke Lacross than it is to OJ Simpson. OJ had plenty of past history.

Some of you believe this guy is guilty but state no reasons for such belief. This guy should never have been charged. There is no evidence that he raped anyone. No force, no weapon, no drug test, no other forensics, no prior convictions, no prior predatory conduct, no witnesses from his past, no evidence this guy is a criminal and no past history that would lead anyone to believe he is a rapist. This isn't even a close call.

As to your argument that real victims would not come forward: It's possible, but that has to be weighed against false accusations with no fear of repercussion and reckless prosecutions. You are correct that some criminals get away with terrible things. You must also recognize that some women falsely accuse people and the prosecutor's office jumps. LOOK AT THE RECENT NORWICH UNIVERSITY COED THAT HAD HER EX-BOYFRIEND LOCKED UP IN PRISON. LATER COMPUTER FORENSICS PROVED SHE LIED. She eventually got charged with a crime but not until some poor guy served time in jail for her lies. This happened recently.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 10:55 pm EST

report this comment



Pretty vengenful attitude there, Olde Man. So you recommend going after the victims or alleged victims anytime someone is found not guilty of committing a crime in court? Regardless of whether he did it or not, there is a very high standard that the state must meet for a jury to convict: beyond a reasonable doubt. It clearly wasn't met here. Do you have any understanding of what the effect that attitude would have on victim's reporting crimes? How many guilty people would never be charged if a victim was afraid of being prosecuted if their attacker was found not guilty?

Kind of scary too that most of the rapists you know start before they are 50. Classy company you keep. That reasoning is like saying that because you have never murdered anyone before you turned 50, you couldn't possibly do ever murder anyone.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 9:05 pm EST

report this comment



Olde man, your statement, "You're INNOCENT unless proven guilty. He was found not guilty, therefore he is INNOCENT" does not compute. I'm not saying this guy is NOT innocent but all he was found was "not guilty."

If I'm in a psychotic state and I kill my brother but I'm found "not guilty by reason of insanity" am I innocent? No, I'm simply not guilty.

If rob the local bank, I get caught because I have a hoodie and face mask just like the guy on the bank video but 11 jurors out of 12 say I'm guilty and one person says I'm not, am I innocent? No, the finding would be "not guilty."

They are not the same thing.

Sounds to me like he picked the wrong chick to mess around with and cheat on his wife. The mom said the woman had made similar accusations before (according to the accused anyway and the mom didn't deny it. She just couldn't remember saying it. Ha!). Perhaps there's a problem with the accuser? Like not being able to tell the truth, maybe?
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 7:33 pm EST

report this comment



Sounds like BOTH parties are being less than honest. Podolece was caught in a lie about the pills after all. Also, I agree with Melissa, the absence of a conviction does not prove the absence of a crime, just the absence of absolute evidence. How many times has a person been found innocent in criminal court, but guilty in civil court (ala the aforementioned Simpson). Lastly, I am not sure that charging an alleged rape victim whose case is lost (or won if you are Mr. Podolece) with false accusations is the way to go. After all, it is a hard crime to prove (rape), and this would just further discourage women who were truly assaulted from coming forward.
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 7:14 pm EST

report this comment



another lyin liberal. She probably had too much testosterone for the month
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 6:27 pm EST

report this comment



Read more closely Melissa. This case sounds like the Duke Lacross case. NO EVIDENCE ! If she was drugged they could do a blood test to see if she had "roofies" in her system. Probably not. I don't know ANY rapist that starts their career at age 50. The facts point to a false accusation. The guy has no criminal record for 50 years and suddenly he starts to rape?? NO WAY! That isn't real life. Check out the sex offender registry. There isn't a rapist in the world that started raping after age 50.

She should be tried in criminal court for making a false accusation. The prosecutor and the victim advocate should get fired.

It's possible I know what I'm talking about too.




/
-- Posted by Olde Man on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 5:30 pm EST

report this comment



IF that is the case mindcat, but just because some one isn't found guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just not enough evidence to convict. If she was lying, why would she give her name to the press to use it? That would be character suicide. Doesn't make sense.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 4:19 pm EST

report this comment



The woman should be charged in civil court and made to pay damages to the man she falsely accused. Some women use RAPE as a way to get even with men.
In the same way some women will lie about sexual molestations to get sole custody of children.
-- Posted by Mindcat None on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 1:37 pm EST

report this comment



Olde man, it says they couldn't convict him because of reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean she was lying. There has to be no doubt to convict. OJ Simpson was acquitted on reasonable doubt, but he sure as hell wasn't innocent.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 12:08 pm EST

report this comment



How about charging this woman with making a false accusation? She put this guy through hell for 2 years and he is INNOCENT. You're INNOCENT unless proven guilty. He was found not guilty, therefore he is INNOCENT. The whole case stinks.


/
-- Posted by Olde Man on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 11:57 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout