Stephanie Page

From Robin's SM-201 Website
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Fleur-12.jpg Main article: Barbara Asher
Stephanie Page
Boston
Born: Oct. 15, 1948; Exeter, N.H.
Education: Northeastern University School of Law (1978); Vassar College (1974)
Bar admission: 1978
Professional experience: Committee for Public Counsel Services (1979-present)
Professional affiliations: Boston Bar Association, Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, American College of Trial Lawyers

Say these three words to any average Joe and you're likely to see a hint of recognition in his or her eyes: dominatrix, hacksaw, dumpster. Though people might not remember the finer details of the case or even its defendant, they certainly remember the salacious bits that were splashed across front pages and evening newscasts in the summer of 2000: a 56-year-old dominatrix; an overweight client whose heart failed him; a brutal butchering in a bathtub; and haphazard disposal of the body.

This is what public defender Stephanie Page was up against when she took on the case of Barbara Asher. But spend a few minutes with the straightforward, soft-spoken attorney and the prosecution's case suddenly becomes hot air. "No body. No blood. No DNA. No evidence" became Page's mantra throughout the highly publicized and sensationalistic trial, which included the dramatic display of prosecutor Robert Nelson donning a leather mask and re-enacting his client's alleged death.

Piece by piece, Page tore apart the prosecution's case, using two hours of recorded interviews to prove that police had force-fed Asher her alleged confession, which supposedly came right as the tape recorders were turned off. Familiarizing herself with the intricacies of dismembering a body also helped Page thwart the prosecution's argument that Asher and her boyfriend had hacked apart Michael Lord's 260-pound body, without a speck of DNA evidence left behind.

Page's signature tenacity and thoroughness earned Asher an acquittal early this year on charges of manslaughter and bolstered the career public defender's belief that there is no more important role than protecting those who cannot afford a defense.


Q. You said over and over in your defense of Barbara Asher, "No body. No blood. No DNA. No evidence." Considering this, did you feel this was going to be an easy win?

A. No. In fact, any seasoned criminal defense lawyer knows it's the hardest case because if the case hasn't been dismissed and you end up in front of a jury, and particularly with the sensational aspect of this case, it's very dangerous. When you have an innocent client, it is never easy. Any lawyer's going to tell you, anything can go wrong in a second in a courtroom.

Q. What was the alleged connection between Barbara Asher and Michael Lord?

A. The only objective evidence was a phone call that the missing man had spoken to Ms. Asher that afternoon. We had hundreds and hundreds of pages of discovery. Part of that was maybe 50 pages of phone numbers. Prosecutors often think that we're not going to check every single one of those phone numbers, which of course I did. They had never checked this. He was still calling other "doms" afterward. The outrageous part of the Asher case, which is very typical in a lot of my cases, is the inadequate police investigation and this presumption of guilt.

Q. How did you use your client's alleged confession to actually work in your favor?

A. There were about two hours of their interrogation of Miss Asher on tape. Two hours of them asking her questions, and her denials. Every question they asked her had a fact about what they believed happened. We broke the entire statement down â€" how many times they told her what he looked like; how many times they told her what she's supposed to have done to him; how many times they are threatening her with murder but we really know it's a heart attack. Their whole theory was in their questions for two hours, and she kept going, "What are you talking about?" Their claim [was] that when they turned the tape off she immediately then confesses to everything.

And then they go out and investigate that so-called confession, and they don't find anything. They never did any credit check nationwide for him. They never did any financial check outside of New England. Once they found his car, a few days later, they canceled the missing person's report. All you have to do is put his name and Social Security number into Google, and it pops up everywhere. They didn't even do that. We had found out he had property all over the country. They never checked in any one of those states.

Q. You mentioned reading a book about dismembering a body. It's not every day a lawyer has that as reading material. What other interesting research did you find yourself doing to prepare for this case?

A. People think S&M is a violent, hurtful activity. We had to do a lot of research into this. It turned out learning that good doms are very safe. It's not about sex; it's a fetish. There's no sexual activity involved. I had to also learn how you chop up a body and how messy is it. I was able to talk to someone about how to chop up a body, how to clean up a crime scene perfectly. I even got down to the Body Forum in Tennessee. People donate their bodies down there to show how they decompose. We were able to call crime scene cleanup people to find out what they use to clean up. Their theory was that she used Lysol â€" toilet bowl cleaner! â€" to disappear only his DNA because there was other DNA found there. It was ludicrous. The Massachusetts State Police crime lab didn't find any evidence of any chemical cleaners. There wasn't even any evidence of a cleanup.

Q. Who was your best witness in this case?

A. We only presented one witness, that was an expert on false confessions. Most of the time, as public defenders, we rarely call witnesses. We usually win by showing the deficiencies in the commonwealth's case â€" by being able to explain to the jury why the commonwealth's theory isn't right, or why a particular identification witness is mistaken, or why you can't rely on a snitch or a rat to say someone confessed, or why you can't rely on a police investigation because of what they didn't do. And if they only had done it, the argument is, Johnny Defendant wouldn't be sitting here. I'm very reluctant to put witnesses on the stand unless I have to.

Q. In your opinion, what actually happened to Michael Lord?

A. All I know for sure, is he was never at her house. There's no evidence to show that he is dead. He retired. He had just finished his last child support payment. He was making furniture for the S&M world and selling it online. He was developing a business. He had property all over the country. I would not be surprised if he pops up at some point.

Q. Do you feel that you're vilified for representing people that the public has already presumed to be guilty?

A. I think any public defender is vilified. I don't think the public understands how important our role is and what would happen if we weren't there in the courtroom. Every time one of us goes into a courtroom to represent a client, we are really representing everybody. We are representing the Constitution. And, regardless of what the media fanfare is, there's supposed to be a presumption of innocence.

Q. You were listed in Lawyers Weekly as an attorney other lawyers would go to if they needed to be defended in court. What do you think that says about your reputation in the field?

A. The top echelon of the criminal defense bar in Massachusetts is incredible, so when people like that say that about me, I'm very humbled. Sometimes I'm a little taken aback because I don't see myself being any different from any other person who really cares about what we do and is committed to making sure poor people get excellent representation. I clearly care about what I do. I'm thorough. I'm always going to know the prosecution's case better than they do. I'm going to fight with everything I have, and I'm not going to give up. It's important for me to know that [defendants] know that I'm going to be there for them â€" standing in front of them, standing beside them, standing behind them. Before the commonwealth, with all of its power, gets to them, they gotta go through me.


Stephanie Page on ...

Her most memorable moment at law school: I had my first jury trial in Alaska as a student with individual attorney-conducted voir dire. I had no idea what I was doing. It was [the] dark season. That was my alibi. Motor vehicle accident. It was not guilty. It was just unbelievable.

The highlight of her legal career: The moment when I'm with a new client and we finally have eye contact, and I've broken through. And I've made myself a person, as opposed to just a stereotype. I never get over that.

How she celebrates a big win: The same way I celebrate my big losses. You get together, go out, have a couple of drinks, have some bourbon, have a great dinner with friends, share war stories, or outrage, whatever the occasion.

Her role models: Howard Roark and Kip Tiernan. And that's all I'm going to say.

One thing she would change about the practice of law: I wish we had more time. I wish there wasn't so much pressure on a judge that they couldn't give you the time to really explain whatever position they take.

What she does to relax: It's my great friendship. We have great dinners.

Her all-time favorite film or book: "The Way We Were," the original "Bad Seed" and "Dirty Dancing."

One thing about her that might surprise other people: I'm very shy. And I'm a senseless romantic.

What has kept her in the practice of law: I don't consider myself in the practice of law; I'm a public defender. I think that's very different and very unique. I do feel like I have an obligation to help other people or to reach out and guide people through very horrific situations.

The biggest challenge facing Massachusetts courts is a lack of funding all across the board. But the real danger of that is taking the humanity out of the court system.

The most important legal decision of the last 25 years: Crawford v. Washington (2004), which restated why cross-examination is an important tool for determining where the truth lies.

Jeanne Greeley, formerly a reporter at Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, is a freelance writer

Chain-09.png
Jump to: Main PageMicropediaMacropediaIconsTime LineHistoryLife LessonsLinksHelp
Chat roomsWhat links hereCopyright infoContact informationCategory:Root