COEUR d’ALENE, Idaho — During the third and final day of testimony in State of Idaho vs. Paul Trouette, the start of trial was delayed by 45 minutes to hear arguments outside the presence of the jury. At issue was the admissibility of the Idaho Attorney General’s investigative report that found Sheriff Bob Norris acted in good faith and without malice while in the performance of his duties at the Republican town hall earlier this year.
Defense attorney Josh Hanners attempted to admit the AG’s findings on Tuesday during cross-examination of the prosecution’s lead investigator Daniel Haley. However, District Judge Mayli Walsh reserved making a decision until both parties presented additional arguments for her consideration.
After over an hour of discussion, Walsh found the AG’s report to be admissible under rule 803 (8a) and relevant without being unfairly prejudicial.
“The state opened the door,” stated Walsh in reference to the prosecution’s direct and indirect inference that the sheriff acted improperly or outside of his authority.
She told Coeur d’Alene City Prosecutor Ryan Hunter, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” when it came to making the sheriff’s actions central to the case. “You didn’t have to go there, but that’s where we are.”
Walsh also stated that the document contained impeachment evidence which directly contradicted Haley’s testimony. Furthermore, she told the state there was no “undue surprise” since all parties had possession of the report for over a month and that a criminal defendant has a right to confrontation.
However, Walsh determined the document itself was not self-authenticating and would need further evidentiary authentication before being admitted as evidence. The AG’s office was contacted by the defense and a certified copy of the report was delivered to the court, thus allowing it to be admitted.
Norris, who was the defense’s only witness besides Trouette himself, testified that he took action at the town hall because he was concerned about potential violence erupting given “the raising temperature” in the room and that it was his number one duty as sheriff to “preserve the peace”.
The duties of the sheriff are defined by Idaho code 31-2202, and those which are applicable to the incident at the town hall were pointed out by the defense on multiple occasions throughout the trial:
- 31-2202(1)—Preserve the peace.
- 31-2202(2)—Arrest…persons who attempt to commit or who have committed a public offense.
- 31-2202(3)—Prevent and suppress all affrays, breaches of peace, riots and insurrections.
- 31-2202(5)—Command the aid of as many inhabitants of the county as he may think necessary in the execution of these duties.
Norris told the jury he was especially worried about the increasing tensions within the crowd since there were a significant number of elderly, as well as children and disabled persons present in the auditorium.
“I wanted to preserve the peace,” Norris stated more than once. He also described how he requested the assistance of Paul Trouette and the other security personnel who were present well before the event started.
Given there was an active threat toward Rep. Jordan Redman (R-Rathdrum) that was ongoing during the time of the town hall, Norris told the jury he was shocked that Coeur d’Alene police were not present at the venue.
When issues were raised about free speech rights, Hunter asked the sheriff if he was an attorney, Norris quipped, “I make an honest living, I am not a lawyer.” Quiet laughter could be heard throughout the courtroom.
After waving his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, defendant Paul Trouette took the stand. He maintained an affirmative defense that his actions were lawful because he was protected by Idaho code 19-205 which states:
When the officers of justice are authorized to act in the prevention of public offenses, other persons who, by their command, act in their aid, are justified in so doing.
Idaho code 19-205
Trouette testified that the sheriff acted and he simply responded to that action with whatever assistance was needed in any given scenario. “It was a fluid situation.”
The jury was given instructions, then left to deliberate shortly after 5:00 p.m. A verdict is expected to be returned on Thursday.
