BIDDEFORD — On Tuesday, Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices listened to attorneys give oral arguments to decide whether or not to grant a new trial to a Biddeford man convicted on two counts of murder.

In 2010, Rory Holland was found guilty in the June 30, 2009 shooting deaths of Derek and Gage Greene, two brothers from Biddeford.

Holland said he shot the men in self-defense. He is currently in prison serving two life sentences for those murders, but is appealing both the verdict and his sentence.

Defense Attorney Amanda Doherty, with the firm Strike, Goodwin and O’Brien of Portland, argued that Holland should be granted a new trial because the court erroneously prohibited testimony regarding the victims’ “aggressive character.”

Testimony regarding the victims’ threats to neighbors and others on social media, their familiarity with weapons, and their membership with the group “Ride or Die” that Doherty described as a gang, should have been allowed during the trial, she said.

If information about the victims’ character was allowed, however, information about the defendant’s character should also have to be allowed, said Assistant Attorney General Donald Macomber.

By seeking to enter into evidence information about the victims’ character, the defense “wants to put the victims on trial,” he said.

“The only person on trial here was Rory Holland,” said Macomber.

Jury members may have been interested in testimony regarding Holland’s guilty verdict for the attempted murder of his daughter, which prohibited him from owning the gun he used to shoot the brothers, said Macomber, but testimony regarding that case was not allowed during the trial.

Doherty also argued that allowing the state to enter into evidence an outdated criminal law statute book found at Holland’s home was prejudicial. The book was tabbed to a section dealing with the state of mind that can be used for a self-defense argument.

It’s evident the book was prejudicial, she said, because it was the only item the jury requested during its deliberation. Twenty minutes after the request to view the book, the jury came back with a guilty verdict.

That the jury asked to see the statute book, and concluded Holland was guilty shortly after reviewing it, showed the evidence was probative and not prejudicial, said Macomber. During the trial, the state argued that because the book was tabbed to a page about the state of mind needed to prove self-defense, Holland was aware he had committed a crime and was looking for a plausible defense.

Following the hearing, Doherty said she wouldn’t speculate on whether the justices would grant Holland a new trial.

Even if the court found for the defense on the majority of the seven issues Holland’s attorneys raised in its appeal brief, that still might not be enough to allow for a new trial.

However, said Macomber, “I’d be shocked if the court didn’t affirm Rory Holland’s conviction.”

The justices are expected to make a decision in the case within the next few months.

— Staff Writer Dina Mendros can be contacted at 282-1535, Ext. 324 or dmendros@journaltribune.com.