LaBarre struggles to free money for defense in murder case
By James A. Kimble , Staff writer Eagle-Tribune
Murder suspect Sheila LaBarre may have freed her $83,000 from a police evidence room, only to have it potentially seized by the family of her alleged victim.
Yesterday, prosecutors cleared the way for LaBarre, 48, of Epping to reclaim the money she was carrying with her when she was arrested and charged with the murder of Kenneth Countie of Tewksbury, Mass., last year.
A judge now will decide whether LaBarre gets a chance to reverse a $10 million attachment made to her 115-acre horse farm and other assets. Countie's parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit after LaBarre was charged with the first-degree murder of their 24-year-old son.
LaBarre is arguing she needs both her cash and her assets freed so she can pay for a defense team that includes lawyers, expert witnesses and private investigators. Her lawyers say they expect to take the case to trial next year, but have suggested that without the money, LaBarre could ask the court for state assistance with covering legal expenses.
Police said they found an ash-covered LaBarre outside her home on March 25, 2006, collecting Countie's charred and dismembered remains from a nearby "burn pile." LaBarre was armed with a .38-caliber pistol. A day earlier, an officer had spotted a fleshy, 3-inch bone burning in the rubble before state police secured a search warrant, according to a police affidavit. Blood spatter matched to Countie was found throughout the house.
In the weeks leading up to Countie's death, his mother had called both LaBarre and police, concerned about the well-being of her son, who was described as a "special needs" person, according to the family's lawsuit.
The half-hour hearing in Rockingham County Superior Court brought out a half-dozen lawyers, including state prosecutors and civil attorneys representing Countie's mother, Carolynn Lodge, of Billerica, Mass.
Yesterday's hearing put LaBarre's lawyers in an awkward position. Her criminal lawyer, Timothy Bradl of Boston, couldn't argue on her behalf because no lawyer had filed an appearance in the case. Bradl told the judge that LaBarre wasn't prepared to argue on her own behalf for unfreezing her assets, and would like to do so at another hearing.
Even if LaBarre is unleashed from the civil attachment, she must still fight to keep her property. A probate judge decided LaBarre inherited the horse farm at 70 Red Oak Hill Road, from her deceased boyfriend Wilfred LaBarre under questionable circumstances. Wilfred LaBarre, a well-known chiropractor, died in 2000 at the age of 74.
Lodge silently watched yesterday's hearing from the front row of the court gallery. Her lawyer, Peter Eleey of Quincy, Mass., argued that LaBarre has already made four failed attempts to represent herself in the civil lawsuit after a deadline to respond to the case.
A judge found LaBarre failed to respond to the lawsuit last June, which allows Countie's lawyers to ask for a judgment without a trial. To reverse that decision nearly a year later would be unfair to Countie's family, Eleey said.
"There's already been four bites at the apple," Eleey said. "Sheila LaBarre is in default. She didn't file a pleading on time. She didn't file an appeal in a timely manner."
During an interview outside the courtroom, Eleey expressed concern about the court overturning the civil attachment.
Superior Court Judge Kenneth McHugh granted seizing LaBarre's assets last year. Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey, who is presiding over the criminal trial, could now reverse that decision, putting Lodge back on course to pursue a civil trial.
Coffey described LaBarre's request as an "interesting hybrid" of a request that could ha
Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.