PORTLAND – The Standish woman convicted of trying to kill her sleeping husband with a softball bat three years ago is arguing in her appeal to Maine’s highest court that Cumberland County’s top prosecutor committed misconduct during her trial.

Linda Dolloff contends in her appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that District Attorney Stephanie Anderson made improper comments during her trial in 2010, and that those comments deprived Dolloff of a fair trial.

Dolloff was convicted of attempted murder, elevated aggravated assault and filing a false report in the attack on Easter Sunday in 2009. Prosecutors argued during the 14-day trial that she beat her husband, Jeffrey Dolloff, then shot herself in the abdomen to back up her claim that they were victims of a home invasion.

Dolloff, 50, is now serving a 16-year prison sentence.

The couple got married in 1998 and discussed divorce for 10 years. Jeffrey Dolloff testified that they agreed to the final terms of a divorce while soaking in their hot tub two weeks before the assault.

He suffered injuries to his head and upper body in the attack and was unconscious for about a month after the assault, which he doesn’t remember.

Anderson argued during the trial that Linda Dolloff would rather be a “grieving widow” than a “jilted spouse.”

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday focused on certain types of statements made by Anderson and when they might be problematic.

Attorney Verne Paradie Jr. said Anderson violated common law and professional conduct rules for prosecutors. The appeal argues that Anderson repeatedly expressed personal opinions during the trial, misrepresented facts during her closing arguments and wrongly suggested to the jurors that they had to convict Linda Dolloff to deliver justice.

Assistant District Attorney Anne Berlind, who prosecuted the case with Anderson, noted that the defense did not object to some of the statements now in question. She argued that Anderson’s comments did not deprive Dolloff of a fair trial.

Anderson did not respond Wednesday to an interview request relayed through a spokeswoman for her office. The spokeswoman, Tamara Getchell, said Anderson has said that she will not comment before a decision is issued. It’s not clear when that will happen.

Some of the comments, prefaced by the words “I think,” weren’t actually expressions of Anderson’s opinions, Berlind said.

The statements in question include “I don’t think this is the way she did it,” in a description of how Dolloff may have handled the gun, and “I think you can hear it,” in reference to a recording of Dolloff’s 911 call after the attack.

Berlind told the justices that “I think” could be seen as a verbal tic of the prosecutor or a preface to her analysis of the evidence.

“The words ‘I think’ can have very different meanings, depending on how they’re spoken and how they’re delivered,” she said. “All the court has to review is a transcript on black and white — words in black and white. You don’t get the benefit of the tone, the inflection, the matter of delivery of those words. And the body language that might have accompanied those words.”

Justice Jon Levy drew attention to a series of statements that Anderson made about defense lawyer Daniel Lilley — along the lines of “he wants you to ignore this” — during her rebuttal of his closing argument.

“I’m very concerned,” Levy said.

“It seems to me we should be concerned when the argument is so personalized. This is not about the evidence. It’s about Mr. Lilley trying to deceive the jury, isn’t it?” he asked Berlind.

“No, it’s about highlighting the strength of the state’s evidence and pointing out that the defense theory of the evidence does not take into account the state’s evidence, which was so strong,” Berlind answered.

Justice Joseph Jabar asked Berlind about Anderson talking to the jury about the dog seeing “mommy beating daddy” and how the dog couldn’t wait to get out of the house because of it. He questioned whether such a statement was fair when there had been no testimony about what the dog’s behavior could mean.

“On what basis could a prosecutor make that comment?” he asked.

Berlind said it was a fair statement, based on testimony that the dog was Jeffrey Dolloff’s first line of defense, slept in the victim’s room and could be heard whimpering on the 911 recording, along with sounds of a struggle.

Chief Justice Leigh Saufley questioned when improper statements by a prosecutor should cause the reversal of a jury’s verdict.

“It’s clear there are some areas in this long trial where the prosecutor steps over the line that has been drawn,” she said. “But we’ve been very clear: Juries are smart people. They are not easily swayed. They sat through many days of testimony. There has to be something fairly egregious before we will set aside all the good work of a good and true jury in Maine.”

Staff Writer Ann S. Kim can be contacted at 791-6383 or at akim@pressherald.com

Twitter: AnnKimPPH