I was surprised to arrive at a Superior Court hearing Tuesday and learn that retired state police Col. Steven Pare had already been on the stand and testified that Governor Carcieri did not order him to withdraw troopers if they met resistance when raiding the Narragansett Indian smoke shop in 2003.

Pare’s assertion, contradicting what Carcieri had told the public back then, seemed odd. I recalled that when the governor talked about it at a July 15 news conference, one day after the raid, Pare was standing right there.

Carcieri said the police had “explicit” instructions to avoid conflict if they met any resistance and he wondered why they had not retreated when the Narragansetts did resist. He said he was directing Pare to investigate “why my instructions were not followed.”

The thought flashed through my mind on Tuesday: Why hadn’t Pare spoken up right away if Carcieri was not accurately portraying the orders he’d given?

The news conference took on a new life the following day when Attorney General Patrick Lynch accused Carcieri of scapegoating the police. Lynch told me he was “dismayed” that Carcieri had chosen to “excoriate” Pare.

Very interesting. After listening to Lynch, I spoke with Pare.

In a July 17 piece, I reported that Pare said he “absolutely” had not felt embarrassed or angry listening to the governor and did not believe he’d been unfair:

“Pare said the governor had indeed given instructions that the police were to withdraw in the face of resistance. Did he tell Carcieri the instructions were unrealistic? ‘We had a discussion about what resistance we could expect and what resistance we would then retreat from in a general conversation…’ ”

The state police inquiry report, issued Aug. 1, 2003, said that Pare stressed to Maj. John Leyden, who was to be in charge at the scene, that “Carcieri did not want anyone injured, and that should the situation become violent and out of control, the state police withdraw and reassess. The Colonel and Major agreed that no one should be hurt over the sale of illegal tobacco products.”

Later that August, Carcieri told an outside panel chaired by Brown University President Ruth Simmons that he’d instructed the police to back off if they met “significant” resistance. As to what this meant, he testified, “We didn’t really get into that level of detail.”

In court Tuesday, Pare declared, “I was not instructed to withdraw if the state police were met with any resistance.” Asked if Carcieri said to withdraw “if the resistance is not manageable,” Pare said, “No, he did not.”

I have been unable to reach Pare for comment.

The hearing before Judge Susan McGuirl relates to an upcoming trial of seven Narragansetts on such charges as resisting arrest, obstruction and assault.

Defense lawyers contend that jurors should be able to weigh if the state police, acting beyond the scope of the governor’s order, used excessive or unlawful force. The state, arguing that the Indians weren’t entitled to break the law in any instance, objects to Carcieri’s being called to testify.

I told Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal that if I were governor I’d want to testify.

Neal said Carcieri is not a party to the case, being prosecuted by the attorney general, and federal courts have upheld Rhode Island’s right to enforce its laws on the tribe’s lands.

“In our view, nothing the governor said or did not say at the time has any relevance to this criminal case.”

Neal added, “The governor wishes he could say more, but has been advised not to by the state’s attorneys.”

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com