NORTH HAVERHILL, N.H. -- Robert Tulloch stood straight-faced and silent at his arraignment yesterday as Richard Guerriero, his attorney, entered an innocent plea on his behalf to two alternate charges of first degree murder in the deaths of Half and Suzanne Zantop.
Lawyers for both Tulloch and the state also gave arguments on motions related to a number of evidentiary issues on which the judge will rule in the coming weeks.
Although he did not speak during the proceedings at the Grafton County Superior Court, Tulloch appeared engaged, leaning over several times to make comments or perhaps ask questions of Guerriero during the prosecution's testimony.
The charges heard yesterday -- the second set of indictments to be brought against Tulloch -- allege that the Vermont teenager knowingly killed the Zantops in the course of an armed burglary.
As such, yesterday's charges also represent the first formal motive offered by prosecutors in the stabbing deaths of the two Dartmouth professors last January.
Under the first set of charges, prosecutors must prove that Tulloch purposely killed the Zantops and his actions were premeditated and deliberate. Both charges, however, carry mandatory life sentences without parole.
Before the actual arraignment, Judge Peter Smith heard arguments from the defense and state prosecutors on motions previously filed by both sides.
The proceedings, which lasted a little less than an hour, began with Guerriero's motion to electronically record all statements of James Parker, Tulloch's alleged partner, who pled guilty on Dec. 7 to one count of accomplice to second-degree murder in the death of Suzanne Zantop. In exchange, Parker will testify against Tulloch in April.
"James Parker is obviously a really important witness" to the defense, particularly for his testimony regarding Tulloch's mental state, Guerriero said.
Tulloch announced his intention to plead insanity in November, and Guerriero argued that, in light of this, accurate documentation of Parker's statements is vital and that no police report or other form of documentation is equivalent to electronic recording.
Kelly Ayotte, the lead prosecutor in the case, said the state intends to comply with its obligations to the defense, which include sharing all statements made by Parker. Yet due to Parker's incarceration, she argued, there could be future instances where it might not be "appropriate" to use electronic recording.
Moreover, she said, there may arise instances when providing taped recordings of their interviews with Parker could unfairly reveal the prosecution's questioning strategy.
In a brief response to the prosecution, Guerriero emphasized that Parker "doesn't belong to either side," alluding to Parker's agreement to testify against Tulloch.
Guerriero contended that the prosecution may not know that something is relevant to the defense's case, and that he was just asking for an accurate record.
In a motion filed earlier this month, Guerriero and Barbara Keshen, Tulloch's other public defender, had asked for a hearing before Tulloch's April 8 trial to determine whether the state's forensic evidence -- which includes fingerprints on a knife sheath found in the victims' home and boot footprints at the crime scene -- should be presented to a jury.
Speaking for the defense, Keshen pointed that the New Hampshire state lab which handled much of the forensics in this case is not nationally accredited.
She suggested this means the lab's personnel, who are not necessarily subject to regular proficiency tests, might not be "up to par."
In a case she defended three years ago, Keshen said she had witnessed an instance in which the findings of the state lab were later refuted by an out-of-state, accredited lab, showing the technique and methodology used by the state lab to be "scientifically archaic."
"It makes me wonder about the reliability of [state technicians] opinions and findings," she said. "As defense for Mr. Tulloch, we need to be critical."
In conjunction with this challenge to the admissibility of opinion evidence from the state lab, the defense also requested documents that show the lab's failure rate, what internal audits the state's conventional lab is subject to and what sort of proficiency testing its technicians must satisfy.
Challenges to the admissibility of opinion evidence of the kind made by Tulloch's defense are usually handled in the trial itself, a former New Hampshire chief homicide prosecutor previously told the Boston Herald.
State prosecutors yesterday agreed.
"All of the case law in this area indicates that these are not questions of admissibility," Mike Delaney, assistant council for the prosecution, said.
Rather, Delaney argued that the issues the defense raised go to how much weight to give to expert testimony. He said the appropriate place for such questions is at trial.
The prosecution also objected to the request's "lack of specificity" as to which techniques the defense objected to and claimed that the defense had been inaccurate in several of its criticisms of the qualifications of the state lab's personnel.
Other motions presented included one by the prosecution that the defense be required to share evidence it gathers with the state. In criminal cases, by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant.
In the last docket item, the defense said it had no objection to the prosecution's motion to consolidate the two sets of indictments against Tulloch when the case goes to trial.
All charges allege that Tulloch acted together with Parker.
Judge Smith made no rulings on any of the motions yesterday. He should return his decisions in a couple of weeks, Ayotte said in a press conference after the hearing.
She declined to comment on whether the prosecution intends to make a plea bargain with Tulloch. "We're expecting to go to trial on this case in April," she said.
