Lawyers for police chief and town spar in court appearance

GILMANTON — A trial in Police Chief Matt Currier’s suit against the Board of Selectmen could take place as early as January, according to exchanges between the judge and lawyers involved in the case.

The two sides were in Belknap Superior Court Wednesday for a series of motion hearings in the case in which Currier has accused selectmen of overstepping their authority when, 22 months ago, they issued 17 directives regarding Police Department staffing and personnel. Currier filed his suit two months later.

Judge James D. O’Neill III took under advisement motions from both Currier’s and the town’s attorneys which included allegations of contempt of court and whether to allow certain of the chief’s prospective witnesses to testify at trial.

Selectmen have been under a court order since July 2018 barring them from implementing the directives, which deal with such matters as hours of coverage, staffing levels, lengths of shifts, use of cruisers and when officers are permitted to travel beyond town limits.

But Currier’s attorney, Edward Philpot said that while selectmen have said recently they have withdrawn 10 of the 17 directives, they have been attempting to use different avenues to implement those directives.

“They are trying to accomplish the same thing by other means,” Philpot said, arguing that the selectmen’s actions amount to contempt for the court order.

But Matthew Serge, one of two attorneys representing the selectmen at the hearing, said the new town personnel code applies to employees in all town departments and is not an effort to “cherry-pick (certain directives) and plop them into the code.

“It’s not a contemptuous action,” he said. He further argued that Currier sees the court order as “inoculating the chief” from any oversight by the selectmen.

The two sides also argued over allowing Franklin Police Chief David Goldstein and former Belmont Police Chief Vinnie Baiochetti to testify as expert witnesses on Currier’s behalf.

Attorney Demetrio Aspiras said Goldstein and Baiochetti are not qualified to be expert witnesses because Currier wants to use them to testify that the selectmen’s directives are illegal, which should not be allowed because expert witnesses are not permitted to offer legal opinions. In addition, he said Goldstein should be barred from testifying because his testimony would be only repeat Baiochetti’s.

“Their testimony would not be based on any facts in the case. Their proffered opinions are legal conclusions,” Aspiras said.

Philpot, however, told the court, “They have a basis for their opinions based on their experience of being police chiefs, and that what the selectmen are trying to do is outside their authority as selectmen.”

As to Golstein, Philipot said that just because Goldstein agrees with Baiochetti is no reason to exclude his testimony.

At the conclusion of the hearing Currier’s lawyer said he was ready to take the case to trial. Serge said the town would need time to review O’Neill’s rulings. But both sides  agreed a trial in January would be acceptable.