Larry Drown, left, signs the document waiving his right to counsel so he can represent himself as a courtroom deputy, center, waits to take the document to Judge Grearson. Photo by Rob Wills, The Northfield News Larry Drown told the State’s Attorney, Aaron Toscano, to “take a hike” then dramatically went off down the street in front of the Barre District Court last Friday afternoon leaving the prosecutor holding the discovery file that Mr. Drown was to receive.

This happened just after Mr. Drown announced in court that “the drama is over, now it’s time to get serious.”

Mr. Drown informed the court that he was going to represent himself but then refused to consult with the State’s Attorney regarding a discoverty timetable leaving the court without a date to return when he would see the judge again during the pre-trial process.

Judge Brian Grearson told Mr. Drown that he should not attempt to represent himself when such serious charges are pending against him and warned that he would not be given special treatment because of self representation.

The court explained that Mr. Drown is facing three extremely serious charges, careless and negligent driving which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in jail, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon which carries a maximum of 15 years in jail and leaving the scene of an accident which carries a maximum of 3 years in jail.

All of this arose from the alleged assault on a flagger directing traffic around the site of work being done laying a new water main on Wall Street last November.

In January, Mr. Drown told the News “the woman was never hospitalized and was released from the emergency room being ordered to take three aspirin a day. She was never run over,” he insisted. “Her statement even says that she did not go over the hood of my truck or the running board,” he added at the time.

The court said that Mr. Drown will be treated as any other defendant would who has an attorney. Mr Drown will be expected to know court rules, follow court decorum and make proper motions.

When the court asked Mr. Drown why he wanted to represent himself, he told the judge “it is to my advantage to self represent. At this time I do not see a need for services.”

Mr. Drown said that he didn’t want an attorney because then, he wouldn’t be in control, the attorney would.

The judge warned Mr. Drown again and again that he believed the choice to represent himself was an error. He further warned that if Mr. Drown changes his mind and decides later on that he wants an attorney, he may not be able to have one appointed depending upon the timing of the request.

After considerable questioning and answers from the defendant, the court finally agreed to allow Mr. Drown to represent himself and he signed a waiver to the right to counsel.

Mr. Drown then asked if the court could rule on a motion which he had filed in early February where he would be able to obtain the assistance of either a public defender or other attorney paid by the state to help in his defense.

Prior to court, Mr. Drown told Rob Wills of the News that he is entitled to have the assistance of counsel under both state and federal law and said that he would cite various cases during the court hearing to convince Judge Grearson to let him have attorney assistance. He said “pro se defendants cannot be denied ‘services’ merely because they refused a public defender.”

The court said that it had already denied this motion back at the time of the last hearing. The court said either you represent yourself or you have an attorney represent you. You can’t have an attorney advise you that is paid for by the state and at the same time you represent yourself.

Mr. Drown then asked the court to rule on another motion that he filed just prior to court on Friday requesting monetary assistance from the state to pay for depositions and other costs related to getting ready for trial.

The court informed Mr. Drown that this motion would not be heard today because the State’s Attorney has 10 days to respond to the request and that after the response is filed, the court will have a hearing on the motion.

The judge warned that if Mr. Drown expects the motion to be granted, it must set out in detail why the assistance is needed and what costs he expects to have the state pay.

Mr. Drown countered that he didn’t know yet who the witnesses are against him and until he does, he won’t know what the costs might be.

The court then suggested that the State’s Attorney and Mr. Drown get together outside the courtroom so Mr. Drown could get discovery from the state and they could work out a discovery time table.

The State’s Attorney then handed Mr. Drown a document that purportedly contained a proposed discovery order.

The judge told both parties that they should not try to work out dates during the hearing in court but should go outside and come to some agreement on discovery deadlines and then come back into court so dates could be set.

Mr. Drown promptly put the order in his file and said that he would consider it in due course.

Then, without ever getting a date to return to court or having any discussion with the State’s Attorney, as had been ordered, Mr. Drown left the building.